SEM Evaluation of Smear Layer Generated By Rotary Systems-An in Vitro Study Bansal Parul1, Dhawan Rajan2,*, Dhawan Shivani3, Soni Arjun4 1Conservative Dentistry, Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research (MMCDSR)-Mullana, Ambala (India) 2Professor, Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research (MMCDSR)-Mullana, Ambala (India) 3Professor Periodontics, Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research (MMCDSR)-Mullana, Ambala (India) 4MDS student final year Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research (MMCDSR)-Mullana, Ambala (India) *Correspondence: Dr. Rajan Dhawan MDS Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Professor in Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research (MMCDSR)-Mullana, Address: 651, sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal, 132001, India, Email id-endorajan@gmail.com
Online published on 16 July, 2018. Abstract Endodontic instruments generate dentinal debris and smear layer while cleaning and shaping as a consequence of their action on root canal walls. The purpose of this study was to observe and compare the mean smear layer scores following instrumentation of root canals with three different single file rotary systems i.e WaveOne, Neoloix Neoniti & Unicone systems by SEM. Methods 40 extracted mandibular premolars were then randomly divided into 4 groups containing 10 samples each. In Group A, instrumentation of canal was carried out using WaveOne reciprocating files, Group B by Neolix Neoniti continuous system, Group C by Unicone reciprocating files and Group D taken as a control group in which preparation of root canal was done with Hand K type files. After decoronation of samples and splitting the root portions, the samples were subjected to Scanning Electron Microscope analysis for evaluation of surface profile of canal walls at coronal, middle and apical levels. Results The maximum amount of debris and smear layer was produced by GroupC with a statistically significant difference when compared with other groups. Conclusions The maximum amount of smear layer was observed with Unicone reciprocating system and the minority being with the Hand K type files. The debris had been detected more in apical third than in coronal and middle third of canal walls. Top Keywords SEM (Scanning electron microscope), Smear layer, biomechanical preparation. Top |