Home Articles List Article Information
Alexandria Dental Journal
Journal Archive
Volume Volume 50 (2025)
Volume Volume 49 (2024)
Volume Volume 48 (2023)
Volume Volume 47 (2022)
Volume Volume 46 (2021)
Volume Volume 45 (2020)
Volume Volume 44 (2019)
Volume Volume 43 (2018)
Volume Volume 42 (2017)
Volume Volume 41 (2016)
Volume Volume 40 (2015)
Girgis, M., Moussa, S., Omar, S. (2020). BACTERIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF ROOT CANAL CLEANING AFTER CONSERVATIVE VERSUS TRADITIONAL ENDODONTIC ACCESS CAVITY (AN IN VITRO STUDY). Alexandria Dental Journal, 45(3), 37-43. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.122739
Michael E. Girgis; Sybel M. Moussa; Samya S. Omar. "BACTERIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF ROOT CANAL CLEANING AFTER CONSERVATIVE VERSUS TRADITIONAL ENDODONTIC ACCESS CAVITY (AN IN VITRO STUDY)". Alexandria Dental Journal, 45, 3, 2020, 37-43. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.122739
Girgis, M., Moussa, S., Omar, S. (2020). 'BACTERIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF ROOT CANAL CLEANING AFTER CONSERVATIVE VERSUS TRADITIONAL ENDODONTIC ACCESS CAVITY (AN IN VITRO STUDY)', Alexandria Dental Journal, 45(3), pp. 37-43. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.122739
Girgis, M., Moussa, S., Omar, S. BACTERIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF ROOT CANAL CLEANING AFTER CONSERVATIVE VERSUS TRADITIONAL ENDODONTIC ACCESS CAVITY (AN IN VITRO STUDY). Alexandria Dental Journal, 2020; 45(3): 37-43. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.122739

BACTERIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF ROOT CANAL CLEANING AFTER CONSERVATIVE VERSUS TRADITIONAL ENDODONTIC ACCESS CAVITY (AN IN VITRO STUDY)

Article 7, Volume 45, Issue 3, December 2020, Page 37-43  XML PDF (1.07 MB)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.122739
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Michael E. Girgis email 1; Sybel M. Moussa2; Samya S. Omar3
1Instructor of Endodontics, Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
2Professor of Endodontics, Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
3Professor of Oral Biology, Oral biology Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Effective irrigant delivery and agitation protocols with recent advances in magnification, endodontic instruments, and obturation systems can lead to more conservative access opening designs.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the cleaning of the root canal system with 2 different designs of access opening, traditional versus conservative.
METHADOLOGY: 100 extracted upper premolars were divided into four groups according to the access opening performed: Gp I and Gp III Conservative endodontic access, GpII, and IV traditional access opening. Then all teeth were autoclaved, inoculated with Enterococcus faecalis, and incubated for 30 days. Gp I and Gp II were then prepared with Wave One Gold and irrigated with Passive ultrasonic irrigation while Gp III and Gp IV were not instrumented and served as negative control. Finally, all samples were decalcified and submitted to staining by Brown and Brenn stain.
RESULTS: The traditional access opening design showed better cleaning than conservative access. The obtained results showed statistical significance between the two access opening designs regarding the chemical cleaning.
CONCLUSIONS: Conservative and conventional access cavities exhibited different cleaning outcomes. Endodontic microscope assisted conservative access could not be done as a valuable alternative for conventional access without hindering cleaning.
Keywords
access cavity; traditional; conventional; E.faecalis; conservative
Main Subjects
Endodontics
References

1. Patel S and Rhodes J. A Practical Guide to Endodontic Access Cavity Preparation in Molar Teeth. Br Dent J 2007; 203:133–40.
2. Kishen A. Mechanisms and Risk Factors for Fracture Predilection in Endodontically Treated Teeth. Endod Top 2006; 13:57–83.
3. Clark D and Khademi J. Modern Molar Endodontic Access and Directed Dentin Conservation. Dent Clin North Am 2010; 54:249–73.
4. Parashos P, Messer MHH. Rotary NiTi Instrument Fracture and its Consequences. JEndod 2006; 32:1031–43
5. Krishan R, Frank P, Arezou O, Anil K, Thuan D and Shimon F. Impacts of Conservative Endodontic Cavity on Root Canal Instrumentation Efficacy and Resistance to Fracture Assessed in Incisors, Premolars, and Molars. J Endod 2014 ; 40 : 1160 - 6
6. Ingle J I, Bakland L K and Baumgartner J C. Ingle's endodontics 6 (2008). Hamilton, Ontario, BC Decker.
7. Clark D and Khademi J. Case Studies in Modern Molar Endodontic Access and Directed Dentin Conservation. Dent Clin North Am 2010; 54:275–89.
8. Byström A, Sundqvist G, Byström A SG. Bacteriologic evaluation of the effects of percent sodium hypochlorite in endodontic therapy. Scand.J. Dent. Res. 1981: 89: 321-8.
9. Jeffrey LH, Johanna KD, James DJ and Nestor C. Antimicrobial Efficacy of Two Irrigation Techniques in Tapered and Non-tapered Canal Preparations: An in Vitro Study. J Endod 2008; 34: 1374-7
10. Johnson WT, Noblett WC, Torabinejad M, Walton RE. Cleaning and shaping in Endodontics: Principles and Practice. 4th ed. St.Louis, MO: Saunders, 2009:258–86.
11. Lisha G, Jong R, Junqi L, Kyung K, David H and Franklin R. Review of Contemporary Irrigant Agitation Techniques and Devices. J Endod 2009; 35:791- 804
12. Vinoth K, Kavitha S, Lakshminarayanan L, Gomathi NS, and Kumar V. Influence of Irrigating Needle-tip Designs in Removing Bacteria Inoculated into Instrumented Root Canals Measured Using Single-tube luminometer. J Endod 2007; 33:746–8.
13. Roberto E, Antonio J, Oliver V, Francisco T, Giampiero R and Rafael C. Effect of Passive Ultrasonic Activation on Organic Tissue Dissolution from Simulated Grooves in Root Canals Using Sodium Hypochlorite with or without Surfactants and EDTA. J Endod 2017; 43: 1161–5.
14. Ricucci D. and Bergenholtz G. Bacterial status in root‐filled teeth exposed to the oral environment by loss of restoration and fracture or caries – a histobacteriological study of treated cases. Int Endod J. 2003; 36: 787-802.
15. Anna M, Ilkay E, Maria D, Ramona B, Arianna D, Seyed F, et al. Antibacterial and antifungal activities of thymol: A brief review of the literature. JFoodChem 2016;210:402-14
16. Ana P, Matheus A, Daniela C, Yuri D, Doglas C and AnaPaula F. Comparative Evaluation of Calcium Hypochlorite and Sodium Hypochlorite Associated with Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation on Antimicrobial Activity of a Root Canal System Infected with Enterococcus faecalis: An In Vitro Study. J Endod 2014 ;40 :1953 - 7
17. Elie N, Plancoulaine B, Signolle JP, Herlin P. A simple way of quantifying immunostained cell nuclei on the whole histologic section. Cytometry A. 2003; 56: 37-45.
18. Prada I, MicóMuñoz P, GinerLluesma T, MicóMartínez P, ColladoCastellano N, Manzano SA. Influence of microbiology on endodontic failure. Literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019; 24: 364–72.
19. Ran S, Wang J, Jiang W, Zhu C, Liang J. Assessment of dentinal tubule invasion capacity of Enterococcus faecalis under stress conditions ex vivo. International Endodontic Journal 2015; 48: 362– 72.
20. Mehrvarzfar P, Saghiri MA, Asatourian A, Fekrazad R, Karamifar K, Eslami G, et al. Additive effect of a diode laser on the antibacterial activity of 2.5% NaOCl, 2% CHX and MTAD against Enterococcus faecalis contaminating root canals: an in vitro study. J Oral Sci. 2011; 53: 355–60.

21. Balić M, Lucić R, Mehadžić K, et al. The efficacy of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming and sonic-activated irrigation combined with QMiX solution or sodium hypochlorite against intracanal E. faecalis biofilm Lasers. Med Sci 2016; 31: 335.
22. Srivastava S. Current Strategies in Metallurgical Advances of Rotary NiTi Instruments: A Review. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther 2016; 9: 03-33.
23. Ricucci D, Siqueira JF. Biofilms and apical periodontitis: Study of prevalence and association with clinical and histopathologic findings. J Endodon 2010; 36:1177-88.
24. Adalberto R, Siqueira JF, Ricucci D, Lopes W. Dentinal Tubule Infection as the Cause of Recurrent Disease and Late Endodontic Treatment Failure: A Case Report. J Endodon 2012; 38:250-4.
25. Golding CG, Lamboo LL, Beniac DR, Booth TF. The scanning electron microscope in microbiology and diagnosis of infectious disease. Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 265-76.
26. Ricucci D, Pascon EA, Siqueira JF. The Complexity of the Apical Anatomy. In: Versiani M, Basrani B, Sousa-Neto M, eds. The Root Canal Anatomy in Permanent Dentition. Springer, Cham: E-Publishing; 2018: 241-54.
27. Krishan R, Paqué F, Ossareh A, Kishen A, Et al. Impacts of Conservative Endodontic Cavity on Root Canal Instrumentation Efficacy and Resistance to Fracture Assessed in Incisors, Premolars, and Molars. J Endodon 2014; 40:1160-6
28. Souza CC, Bueno CE, Kato AS, Limoeiro AG, Fontana CE, Pelegrine RA. Efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation, continuous ultrasonic irrigation versus irrigation with reciprocating activation device in penetration into main and simulated lateral canals. JConserv Dent 2019;22:155-9
29. Koçak S, Bağcı N, Çiçek E, Türker A, CanSağlam B, and Koçak MM. Influence of passive ultrasonic irrigation on the efficiency of various irrigation solutions in removing smear layer: a scanning electron microscope study. Microsc Res Tech. 2017; 80: 537– 42
30. Prasanna N, Khadija K, Geoffrey P, Chui Y, et al. Does the Orifice-directed Dentin Conservation Access Design Debride Pulp Chamber and Mesial Root Canal Systems of Mandibular Molars Similar to a Traditional Access Design? JEndodon 201

Statistics
Article View: 503
PDF Download: 684