Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
   
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |

 

Login  | Users Online: 3923  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 517-521

Comparative scanning electron microscopy evaluation of Canal Brushing technique, sonic activation, and master apical file for the removal of triple antibiotic paste from root canal (in vitro study)


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Deepa Ashoksingh Thakur
Plot No. 18, Narmada Society, Bhupesh Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.169852

Rights and Permissions

Aims: To compare and evaluate the effectiveness of Canal Brushing technique, sonic activation, and master apical file (MAF) for the removal of triple antibiotic paste (TAP) from root canal using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Materials and Methods: Twenty-two single rooted teeth were instrumented with ProTaper up to the size number F2 and dressed with TAP. TAP was removed with Canal Brush technique (Group I, n: 6), sonic (EndoActivator) (Group II, n: 6), and MAF (Group III, n: 6). Four teeth served as positive (n: 2) and negative (n: 2) controls. The roots were split in the buccolingual direction and prepared for SEM examination (×1000) at coronal, middle, and apical third. Three examiners evaluated the wall cleanliness. Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis was performed by Kruskal–Wallis test and Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results: Difference in cleanliness between three groups is statistically significant in cervical region only. Pairwise comparison in cervical region Canal Brush and sonic activation showed more removal of TAP than MAF. Conclusions: Canal Brush and sonic activation system showed better result than MAF in the cervical and middle third of canal. In the apical third, none of the techniques showed a better result. None of the techniques showed complete removal of TAP from the canal.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2066    
    Printed17    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded152    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal