You are here

Home » Content

PROFİLE .04 CİHAZI İLE YAPILAN KOK KANAL PREPARASYONUNUN DEBRİS VE SMEAR TABAKASI YÖNÜNDEN İNCELENMESİ: SEM ÇALIŞMASI

INVESTIGATION OF EFFICACY ON DEBRIS AND SMKAR LAYER ON ROOT CANAL WALLS PREPARED BY PROFILE .04 INSTRUMENT: A SEM STUDY

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2001

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
I he aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of root canal wall debridement and smear layer following hand and Profile .04 instrumentation. The first group of 12 root canals of premolar teeth was prepared using manual Hedström files. The second group of 12 root canals was instrumented using the Profile .04 system.In both groups, irrigation was performed using a 2.5% MnOCl solution. The canal walls were observed under a scanning electron microscope and the coronal, middle and apical thirds of each canal photographed at different magnifications. Resulting scores recorded and tested statistically. Under the conditions of this study there were no significant differences between Profile .04 and manual instrumentation on the efficacy of root canal debridement and smear layer. As a resulL, none of groups used in this study completely removed smear layer.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Çalışmamızın amacı elle vc Profile .04 cihazı ile preparasyoııun kök kanallarındaki debris ve smear tabakasını temizleme etkinliğinin incelenmesidir. Çalışmamızda yeni çekilmiş 12 adet premolar dişlerin kok kanalları L.grupla elle Hedström eğeler ile, 2.gruntaki 12 adet diş ise Profile .04 cihazı ile prepare edildiler. Her iki grupta da preparasyon işlemi esnasında irrigasyon solüsyonu olarak %2.5 lik NaOCİ kullanıldı. Daha sonra her bir örneğin koronal, orta ve apikaî kanal duvarları debris ve smear tabakasının varlığı yönünden scanning elektron mikroskopla incelendi vc örneklerden çeşitli büyütmede fotoğraflar alındı. Elde edilen skorlar istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildi. Bu çalışmanın sonunda, kök kanallarının elle veya Profile .04 cihazı ile preparasyonu sonucunda her iki grup arasında debris ve smear tabakasını temizleme etkinliği açısından bir fark olmadığı saptandı. Sonuç olarak, hem elle hem de Profile .04 cihazı ile preparasyon kök kanallarını temizlemede yetersiz kaldılar
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-profile.04-cihazi-ile-yapilan-kok-kanal-preparasyonunun-debris-smear-tabakasi-yonunden-incelenmesi-sem-calismasi.pdf
  • 3
1-6
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Abbott PV, Helijkoop l'S, Cardaci
SC
. Hume WR. Hcithcrsay OS. An SEM study of the effects of different irrigation sequences and ultrasonics. Int Endod J 1991;24:308-16.
2.
Akpına
r KE, Ttlrköz KG. S.K.T. Canal Leader 2001 cihazı ile yapılan kök kanal preparasyonu nun debris vc smear tabakası yönünden incelenmesi. C.U- Diş Hek. Kak. Derg. 1998: l(1):ll-15.
3.
BauragartJie
r JC, Brown CM, Mader CL, Peters DDV Shulman .İD. A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of root canal debriment using saline, sodium hypochlorite and citric acid. J Endodon 1984; 10:525-31.
4. Bishop K, Dummer PMH. A comparison of stainless steel flexofiles and nickel-titanium Ni'l'iHex files during the shaping of simulated canals. Int Endod J 1997; 30:25-34.
5. Bolanos OR, Jensen JR. Scanning electron microscope comparisons of the efficacy of various methods of root canal preparation. J Endodon 1980: 6:815-22.
ft. Dippel HW, Mappenbrovwers PMM. Morphology and permcabililv of the dentinal smcar layer, j Prosthet Dent 1982;52:657-62.
7. European Society of Endodontology • Consensus report of the European Society of cndodontology on quality guidelines for endodontic treatment. Int Endod j 1994; 27:115-24.
8. Evans JT, Simon JHS. Evaluation of the apical seal produced by injected thermoplasticized gutta-percha in the absence of smear layer and root canal sealer. J Endodon 1986; 12:101-7.
9. GlaKser GC, Gocrig AC, Zislis T, Pugh RJ. Luriano J. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of endosonie and band instrumentation in the debridement of root canal systems. Quint Int 1989; 20:525-30¬10. Raikel Y, Allcmann C. Effectiveness of four
methods for preparing root canals: a scanning electron microscopic evaluation. J Endodon 1988; 14:340-5.
11. Heard f\ Walton RE. Scanning electron microscope study comparing four root canal preparation techniques in small curved canals. Int Endod J 1997; 30:323-331.
5
Atatürk Ünıv.Dıs Hek.Fak.Dcrg. GİLİ1, Sayı-3, Sayfa: S-6.2001
ASLAN
12. Hülümann M, Rümmclin C, Schafers K Root canal cleanJîtıess after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: A comparative SHM investigation J Endodon 1997; 23 (5);30J-6,
13. Kalavcı A, Dalai D. Ultrasonik preparasyon Sic kullanılan lik NaOCI vc %0.2' lik klorheksidin glukonatin debris üzerine elkileri;scaiming elektron mikroskobik çalışma. Aİj Diş FlekFakDcrg 1997;24:33-8.
14. Knvanagh D, Lumîey l'J. An in vitro evaluation of canal preparation using Profile 04 and .06 taper instruments. Endod Dent Traumalal 1998; 14:16-20.
15. Kennedy WA. Walker WA, Gougli RW. Smcar layer removal effects apical leakage. } Hndudon 1986, 12:21-7.
16. Knowless KI, ]hamtla JL, Christiansen RK. Assessing apical deformation and transportation following the use of LightSpccd root canal instruments Int Endod J 1996; 29:1 13-7.
17. Miziahi SJ. Tucker J\V, Seltzer S. A scanning electron microscopic study of the efficacy of various endodotic instruments. J Hndodon 1975; 1:324-33.
18. Pashley DH, Michel i c V, Kchl I. Dentin permeability .Effects of smear layer removal. ,1 ProslheL Dent 1981;46:531-37.
19. Peters OA, Barbakow K HITects of irrigation on debris and smcar layer on canal walls prepared by two rotary techniques: A scanning electron microscopic study, J Hndodon 2000; 2fi( 1) :6-10.
20. Schafcr H, Zapkc K. A comparative scanning electron microscopic investigation of the efficacy of manual and automated instrumentation of rttol canals. J Endodon 2000; 26(! J):660-664,
21. Sj örgen U, Stmdqvist Q. Ractcmlogical evaluation of ultrasonic root canal instrumentation. Oral Surg 1987;63:366-70.
22. Smith OS, Setchell DJ, Harty FX Factors influencing the success of conventional root canal thcrapy-a five year retrospective sLudv. Int hndod .1 1993: 26:321-33.
23.
Şakla
r F, Darlar M: Topbaş Cv Funga U. Farklı kanal aletleri ile yapılan preparasyon sonrası oluşan debris vc smear tabakasının incelenmesi. S Ü I3ia Hek. Fak. Dcrg, 1997;7(2):52-56.
24. Thompson SA, Dummcr Mil. Shaping ability of Profile .04 taper scries 29 rotary nickel titanium instruments in simulated root eanals.Part I- Int findod J 1997; 30:1^7,
25. Thompson SA, Dummer MH. Shaping ability of Profile .04 taper series 29 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals.Part 2, Int Bndod .1 1997; 30:8-5
26. Walia H, Brantley W, Oerslein Ff, An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of nitinol root canal files. J Endodon 1988; 14:346-51.
27.
Zatmoğh
ı L. Kök kanalında smear tabakasının scanning elektron mikroskopu ile incelcnmcsi(T). A 0 Diş Hek Fak Der*; 1985; 12:333-334.
28.
Zaiınoği
u F. Kök kanalında smear tabakasının scanning elektron mikroskupu île iîicelenmcsi(ll), M U Dig Hck Fat Derg 1985; 1:13-20.
29-
Zaimoğl
u L, Şaklar F, Solak H. Sorıik ciha/Jaıın kök kanai duvarfarına etkileri. A Ü Diş Hek hak Derg 1988; 15:323-330

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com