Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMachado, C.A.D.
dc.contributor.authorSouza, A.C.A.
dc.contributor.authorMartinho, F.C.
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-16T15:13:01Z
dc.date.available2019-09-16T15:13:01Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85072011773&doi=10.1590%2f1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0039&partnerID=40&md5=c7a9d97dfb61127e2d5ab4d01458aa9a
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10713/10861
dc.description.abstractThis clinical study compared the effectiveness of two rotary systems: HyFlex CM (Coltene-Whaledent, Altstetten, Switzerland) and ProTaper Next (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland) on the removal of cultivable bacteria and endotoxins from primarily infected root canals. This study was designed as a randomized single-blinded, 2-arm, clinical trial. Twenty-four primarily infected root canals were selected and randomly divided into 2 groups: HyFlex CM (n = 12); and ProTaper Next (n = 12). Samples were collected before and after the biomechanical preparation and inoculated in specific flasks. Irrigation was performed using 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. A kinetic turbidimetric lysate assay of limulus amoebocytes was used to quantify endotoxins. Microbiological culture technique was used to determine the count of bacterial colony forming units (CFU/mL). Data collected were statistically analyzed using SigmaPlot 12.0 for Windows. The Two-Way ANOVA statistical test was performed and the level of significance was 5%. In the samples before the biomechanical preparation, cultivable bacteria and endotoxins were evidenced in 100% of the cases. The culture analysis revealed that there was no statistically significant difference in the bacterial reduction between the two instrumentation systems. Endotoxins were present in 100% of the canals after instrumentation and there was no statistical difference between the two systems in endotoxin reduction. Thus, it was concluded that both instrumentation systems were effective in reducing root canal bacteria and endotoxins with primary endodontic infection and that there was no statistical difference between them. However, no system was able to eliminate 100% of the bacteria and their by-products.en_US
dc.description.urihttps://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0039en_US
dc.language.isoen-USen_US
dc.publisherThe Scientific Electronic Library Onlineen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBrazilian oral research
dc.subjectendodontic rotary systemsen_US
dc.subjectRoot Canal Therapyen_US
dc.titleComparison of two rotary systems in bacteria/lps removal from endodontic infections: randomized clinical trialen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0039
dc.identifier.pmid31508729


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record