Penetración del hipoclorito de sodio al comparar cuatro sistemas rotatorios de preparación en conductos mesovestibulares de molares inferiores / Sodium Hypochlorite Penetration when comparing four Rotatory Preparation Systems in Lower-Molar Mesiobuccal...

Eduardo Enrique Covo Morales, Angela María Ruíz Llorente, Miguel Ángel Simancas Pallares


RESUMEN. Objetivo: Comparar la diferencia de longitud de penetración del hipoclorito de sodio al emplear cuatro sistemas rotatorios de preparación en conductos mesovestibulares de molares inferiores. Métodos: Fue un estudio experimental in vitro en 80 raíces mesiales de molares inferiores divididas aleatoriamente en cuatro grupos de 20 raíces cada uno entre los sistemas de preparación así: grupo 1, Reciproc®; grupo 2, Mtwo®; grupo 3, WaveOne®; grupo 4, ProTaper®. Se obtuvo radiografía de conductometría, se preparó cada grupo según la técnica de instrumentación, se irrigó con hipoclorito de sodio al 5,25 % y finalmente se introdujo medio de contraste Iohexol en el canal radicular. Después de la segunda radiografía, se calculó la diferencia con respecto a la conductometría para determinar la diferencia de longitud de penetración (DLP). La DLP de los grupos de estudio se comparó por medio de la prueba H de Kruskal-Wallis (p<0,05). Resultados: La mediana de la conductometría global fue de 14,6 mm (RI: 2,41), la de penetración de 13,9 mm (RI: 3,23) y la de diferencia de 0,03 mm (RI: 0,41). El grupo con menor longitud de penetración fue WaveOne®(media: 0,020 mm). Al comparar la DLP entre los grupos, no se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas (p=0,15). Conclusiones: Cualquiera de los cuatro sistemas evaluados en este estudio puede ser empleado para instrumentación biomecánica de canales mesovestibulares de molares inferiores. La escogencia de un sistema se debe hacer teniendo en cuenta las características clínicas de cada caso y el desempeño operativo de cada sistema. 

ABSTRACT. Objective: To compare irrigant penetration length in 4 root preparation rotary systems used in lower molar mesio-buccal canals. Methods: This was an in vitro study with a sample of 80 lower-molar mesial roots randomly assigned into four groups, 20 roots for every preparation system: group 1, Reciproc®; group 2, Mtwo®; group 3, WaveOne®; group 4, ProTaper®. We obtained a first x-ray to determine working length (conductometry), prepared canals according to each instrumentation technique, and irrigated them with 5.25 % sodium hypochlorite. After preparation, we injected the contrast solution in the root canal. We obtained a second x-ray to measure irrigant penetration length (IPL) and then calculated a difference with regard to the working length measurement in order to determine the penetration length difference (PLD). PLD between groups was compared through the Kruskal-Wallis test (p=0.05). Results: Overall median conductometry was 14.6 mm (IQR: 2.41), IPL: 13.9 (IQR: 3.23) and PLD: 0.03 mm (IQR: 0.41). The WaveOne® group had the lowest PLD (0.02 mm). However, there were no statistically significant differences between groups (p=0.15). Conclusions: Any of the four systems studied could be used for biomechanical preparation of lower molar mesio-buccal root canals. The choice of any particular system should be made having into account the clinical challenges of each case and the system’s operative performance.


cavidad pulpar; endodoncia; irrigantes del conducto radicular; preparación del conducto radicular; tratamiento; tratamiento del conducto radicular

Full Text:

PDF (Español)


Haapasalo M. Can I use chlorhexidine as the only irrigating solution in my endodontic treatments? J Can Dent Assoc. 2011; 77: b16.

Singla MG, Garg A, Gupta S. MTAD in endodontics: an update review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011; 112(3): e70-6.

Clarkson RM, Podlich HM, Moule AJ. Influence of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid on the active chlorine content of sodium hypochlorite solutions when mixed in various proportions. J Endod. 2011;37(4): 538-43.

Marques da Silva B, Baratto-Filho F, Leonardi DP, Henrique Borges A, Volpato L, Branco Barletta F. Effectiveness of ProTaper, D-RaCe, and Mtwo retreatment files with and without supplementary instruments in the removal of root canal filling material. Int Endod J. 2012; 45(10): 927-32.

Al-Kilani MG, Whitworth JM, Dummer PM. Preliminary in vitro evaluation of Carisolv as a root canal irrigant. Int Endod J. 2003; 36(6): 433-40.

Estrela C, Estrela CR, Barbin EL, Spano JC, Marchesan MA, Pecora JD. Mechanism of action of sodium hypochlorite. Braz Dent J. 2002; 13(2): 113-7.

Rolla G, Melsen B. On the mechanism of the plaque inhibition by chlorhexidine. J Dent Res. 1975; 54(Spec issue B): B57-62.

Dagna A, Arciola CR, Visai L, Selan L, Colombo M, Bianchi S, Poggio C. Antibacterial efficacy of conventional and single-use Ni-Ti endodontic instruments: an in vitro microbiological evaluation. Int J Artif Organs. 2012: 35(10): 826-31.

Bystrom A, Sundqvist G. Bacteriologic evaluation of the efficacy of mechanical root canal instrumentation in endodontic therapy. Scand J Dent Res. 1981; 89(4): 321-8.

Siqueira JF, Jr., Rocas IN, Santos SR, Lima KC, Magalhaes FA, de Uzeda M. Efficacy of instrumentation techniques and irrigation regimens in reducing the bacterial population within root canals. J Endod. 2002; 28(3): 181-4.

Di Fiore PM, Genov KA, Komaroff E, Li Y, Lin L. Nickel-titanium rotary instrument fracture: a clinical practice assessment. Int Endod J. 2006; 39(9): 700-8.

So MV, Saran C, Magro ML, Vier-Pelisser FV, Munhoz M. Efficacy of ProTaper retreatment system in root canals filled with gutta-percha and two endodontic sealers. J Endod. 2008; 34(10): 1223-5.

Plotino G, Grande NM, Testarelli L, Gambarini G. Cyclic fatigue of Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating instruments. Int Endod J. 2012; 45(7): 614-8.

Dadresanfar B, Iranmanesh M, Mohebbi P, Mehrvarzfar P, Vatanpour M. Efficacy of Two rotary NiTi Instruments in removal of resilon/epiphany obturants. Iran Endod J. 2012; 7(4): 183-8.

Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971; 32(2): 271-5.

Munoz HR, Camacho-Cuadra K. In vivo efficacy of three different endodontic irrigation systems for irrigant delivery to working length of mesial canals of mandibular molars. J Endod. 2012; 38(4): 445-8.

El Batouty KM, Elmallah WE. Comparison of canal transportation and changes in canal curvature of two nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2011; 37(9): 1290-2.

Hulsmann M, Heckendorff M, Lennon A. Chelating agents in root canal treatment: mode of action and indications for their use. Int Endod J. 2003; 36(12): 810-30.

Caviedes J, Cabezas C, Morales D, Perera M, Tineo H. Biomecánica de la irrigación en el pronóstico de la endodoncia con sistemas de limas secuenciales rotatorias y limas únicas de movimiento alterno. Canal Abierto Rev Soc Endod Chile. 2012; 26(4): 4-13.

Salzgeber RM, Brilliant JD. An in vivo evaluation of the penetration of an irrigating solution in root canals. J Endod. 1977; 3(10): 394-8.

Bronnec F, Bouillaguet S, Machtou P. Ex vivo assessment of irrigant penetration and renewal during the final irrigation regimen. Int Endod J. 2010; 43(8): 663-72.

Topcu KM, Karatas E, Ozsu D, Ersoy I. Efficiency of the self adjusting file, WaveOne, Reciproc, ProTaper and hand files in root canal debridement. Europ J Dent. 2014; 8(3): 326-9.

Saber SE, Nagy MM, Schafer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of WaveOne, Reciproc and OneShape single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2015; 48(1): 109-14.

Kamel WH, Kataia EM. Comparison of the efficacy of smear clear with and without a canal brush in smear layer and debris removal from instrumented root canal using WaveOne versus ProTaper: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2014; 40(3): 446-50.

Arzate-Sosa G, Lara-Carrillo E, Villarreal-Camarena C, Scougall-Vilchis R, Ríos-Medina L. Comparative study of two rotary systems by evaluating irrigant penetration using a contrast medium. A pilot study. Rev ADM. 2013; 70(3): 140-5.

Plotino G, Giansiracusa Rubini A, Grande NM, Testarelli L, Gambarini G. Cutting efficiency of Reciproc and waveOne reciprocating instruments. J Endod. 2014; 40(8): 1228-30.

Dietrich MA, Kirkpatrick TC, Yaccino JM. In vitro canal and isthmus debris removal of the self-adjusting file, K3, and WaveOne files in the mesial root of human mandibular molars. J Endod. 2012; 38(8): 1140-4.

Bhatti N, Sroa R, Sikri VK. Evaluation of surface preparation and maintenance of canal curvature following instrumentation with hand 'K' file and three different Ni-Ti rotary systems: A radiographic and SEM study. Contem Clin Dent. 2010; 1(2): 88-93.

Burklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schafer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J. 2012; 45(5): 449-61.


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Copyright (c) 2015 Eduardo Enrique Covo Morales, Angela María Ruíz Llorente, Miguel Ángel Simancas Pallares

Creative Commons
This work is registered under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International.
Created from