Display options
Cite
Dagna A, Gastaldo G, Beltrami R, et al. F360 and F6 Skytaper: SEM evaluation of cleaning efficiency. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2016;6(3):69-74doi: 10.11138/ads/2015.6.3.069.
Dagna, A., Gastaldo, G., Beltrami, R., Chiesa, M., & Poggio, C. (2015). F360 and F6 Skytaper: SEM evaluation of cleaning efficiency. Annali di stomatologia, 6(3), 69-74. https://doi.org/10.11138/ads/2015.6.3.069
Dagna, Alberto, et al. "F360 and F6 Skytaper: SEM evaluation of cleaning efficiency." Annali di stomatologia vol. 6,3 (2015): 69-74. doi: https://doi.org/10.11138/ads/2015.6.3.069
Dagna A, Gastaldo G, Beltrami R, Chiesa M, Poggio C. F360 and F6 Skytaper: SEM evaluation of cleaning efficiency. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2016 Feb 12;6(3):69-74. doi: 10.11138/ads/2015.6.3.069. eCollection 2015. PMID: 26941891; PMCID: PMC4755683.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2016 Feb 12;6(3):69-74. doi: 10.11138/ads/2015.6.3.069. eCollection 2015.

F360 and F6 Skytaper: SEM evaluation of cleaning efficiency.

Annali di stomatologia

Alberto Dagna, Giulia Gastaldo, Riccardo Beltrami, Marco Chiesa, Claudio Poggio

Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical, Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences - Section of Dentistry, University of Pavia, Italy.
  2. Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Italy.

PMID: 26941891 PMCID: PMC4755683 DOI: 10.11138/ads/2015.6.3.069

Abstract

AIM: Root canal preparation may produce a large quantity of smear layer that covers canal walls. Single-file systems have recently appeared, with the aim of reducing the number of steps and files to reach a correct endodontic treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate by SEM the root canal walls after instrumentation with F360 (Komet, Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) and F6 Skytaper (Komet, Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany), in order to evaluate the presence/absence of smear layer and the presence/absence of open tubules on the root canal walls at coronal, middle, and apical third of each sample.

METHODS: Twenty single-rooted freshly extracted teeth were selected and divided into 2 groups. For each group root canals were shaped with F360 (Komet, Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) and F6 Skytaper (Komet, Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) instruments under irrigation with 5,25% NaOCl and 17% EDTA. Specimens were fractured longitudinally and analyzed by SEM at standard magnification of 5000x. The presence/absence of smear layer and the presence/absence of open tubules at the coronal, middle, and apical third of each canal were evaluated using a 5-step scale for scores. Numeric data were analyzed using Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U statistical tests and significance was predetermined at P <0.05.

RESULTS: This study did not reveal differences among two groups at the coronal and apical third. The apical third showed the highest values of scores for all Ni-Ti systems used. Significant differences in smear layer scores were recorded among the Ni-Ti systems at middle canal level (P < 0.05), where F6 Skytaper showed significantly lower scores than F360.

CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this study, F360 and F6 Skytaper rotary instruments seem to be effective in shaping root canals with good debridement from canal walls, without significant differences between the two systems as it regards the coronal third and the apical third, the area where more debris is still visible. Instead, in the middle third F6 Skytaper seems to be more effective than F360, with statistically significative differences between the two systems.

Keywords: Ni-Ti; SEM; debris; single-file systems; single-use instruments; smear layer

References

  1. J Endod. 2009 Jul;35(7):938-43 - PubMed
  2. J Endod. 1997 May;23(5):301-6 - PubMed
  3. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1992 Feb;8(1):6-11 - PubMed
  4. Int Endod J. 2007 Jul;40(7):553-62 - PubMed
  5. J Endod. 2003 Jul;29(7):450-2 - PubMed
  6. Int Endod J. 1997 Sep;30(5):335-42 - PubMed
  7. Int Endod J. 2004 Dec;37(12):832-9 - PubMed
  8. Int Endod J. 1982 Jul;15(3):132-6 - PubMed
  9. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998 Jan;85(1):86-93 - PubMed
  10. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1982 Sep;54(3):323-8 - PubMed
  11. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2014 Dec 30;12(3):256-62 - PubMed
  12. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Oct;108(4):e71-6 - PubMed
  13. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1983 Mar;55(3):307-12 - PubMed
  14. Int Endod J. 1997 Jul;30(4):279-82 - PubMed
  15. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1979 Jun;47(6):558-61 - PubMed
  16. J Endod. 2003 Apr;29(4):257-8 - PubMed
  17. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1999 Feb;15(1):42-5 - PubMed
  18. J Endod. 1998 Jun;24(6):414-6 - PubMed
  19. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1970 Apr;29(4):613-9 - PubMed
  20. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1975 Mar;3(3):60-3 - PubMed
  21. Indian J Dent Res. 2011 Jan-Feb;22(1):10-5 - PubMed
  22. J Endod. 1995 Oct;21(10):513-5 - PubMed
  23. J Endod. 1994 Jun;20(6):276-8 - PubMed
  24. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1993 Jun;9(3):95-100 - PubMed
  25. J Endod. 1999 May;25(5):351-3 - PubMed
  26. J Endod. 2013 Aug;39(8):1067-70 - PubMed
  27. J Endod. 2006 Oct;32(10):993-7 - PubMed
  28. J Endod. 2004 Aug;30(8):559-67 - PubMed
  29. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Oct;106(4):e63-71 - PubMed

Publication Types