Clinical antibacterial effectiveness of the self-adjusting file system

Aim To evaluate in vivo the antibacterial effectiveness of the self‐adjusting file (SAF) using molecular methods. Methodology Root canals from single‐rooted teeth with apical periodontitis were instrumented using the SAF system under continuous irrigation with 2.5% NaOCl. DNA extracts from samples t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inInternational endodontic journal Vol. 47; no. 4; pp. 356 - 365
Main Authors Neves, M. A. S., Rôças, I. N., Siqueira Jr, J. F.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.04.2014
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Aim To evaluate in vivo the antibacterial effectiveness of the self‐adjusting file (SAF) using molecular methods. Methodology Root canals from single‐rooted teeth with apical periodontitis were instrumented using the SAF system under continuous irrigation with 2.5% NaOCl. DNA extracts from samples taken before and after instrumentation were subjected to quantitative analysis of total bacteria counts and levels of streptococci by quantitative real‐time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). The reverse‐capture checkerboard assay was also used to identify 28 bacterial taxa before (S1) and after (S2) SAF instrumentation. SAF was also compared with a conventional hand nickel–titanium instrumentation technique for total bacterial reduction. Data from qPCR were analysed statistically within groups using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test and between groups using the Mann–Whitney U‐test and the Fisher's exact test, with significance level set at P < 0.05. Results Self‐adjusting file significantly reduced the total bacterial counts from a mean number of 1.96 × 107 cells to 1.34 × 104 cells (P < 0.001). Quantitatively, the 99.9% reduction in total bacterial counts associated with the SAF system was significantly superior to the 95.1% reduction obtained by hand instrumentation (P < 0.001). Qualitatively, SAF resulted in significantly more cases with negative PCR results for bacteria (54.5%) than hand instrumentation (4.5%) (P < 0.001). The SAF system succeeded in significantly reducing the streptococcal levels, but four cases still harboured these bacteria in S2. Checkerboard analysis revealed that not only streptococci but also some anaerobic and even as‐yet‐uncultivated bacteria may resist the effects of chemomechanical procedures. Conclusion The SAF instrumentation system was highly effective in reducing bacterial populations from infected root canals and performed significantly better than hand instrumentation. However, because half of the samples still had detectable bacteria after preparation with SAF, supplementary disinfection is still required to maximize bacterial elimination.
Bibliography:ark:/67375/WNG-CGZNHL9B-V
ArticleID:IEJ12151
Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ)
Brazilian Governmental Institutions
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)
istex:9EF56926170AC1D558FF4FE8517C05554899DC72
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0143-2885
1365-2591
DOI:10.1111/iej.12151