title: Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of root canal surfaces prepared with three rotary endodontic systems: Lightspeed, ProTaper and EndoWave.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the cleaning efficiency, preparation time, instrument deformation and fracture with LightSpeed (LS), ProTaper (PT) and EndoWave (Ew) rotary instruments.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 45 freshly extracted human mandibular premolars were subjected for the study. They were divided into three groups, each group consisting of 15 teeth. Group 1: The canals were prepared with LS system; Group 2: PT rotary system, Group 3: Ew rotary system. All the groups were prepared according to manufacturer's recommendation, using 5.25% sodium hypochlorite and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (dent wash, prime dent) alternately as an irrigants. Crowns of each tooth were removed with diamond disks at the level of cemento enamel junction. Canal length was determined by placing a size 10 K-file. The working length was 0.5 mm short of canal length. Two longitudinal grooves were prepared on the lingual and buccal surfaces of each root to facilitate vertical splitting with a chisel after canal instrumentation. The sections were then observed under scanning electron microscope for presence or absence of debris and smear layer and the photographs were taken at coronal, middle and apical 1/3 with a magnification of × 200 and × 1000 respectively. The time taken to enlarge each canal was recorded in minutes and seconds. The instruments were examined after every use for deformation. The scores recorded were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There was statistically significant difference with regard to removal of debris and smear layer at coronal, middle and apical third for LS versus PT and LS versus Ew (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between PT and Ew. The mean preparation time for LS, PT and Ew was 1.76, 2.50 and 2.75 respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The study demonstrated that, LS instrumentation removed debris and smear layer effectively with shorter preparation time and Ew instrument showed deformation.
authors.affiliation: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.
authors.forename: B S
authors.initials: BS
authors.lastname: Hema
authors.forename: G S
authors.initials: GS
authors.lastname: Chandu
authors.forename: V L
authors.initials: VL
authors.lastname: Shiraguppi
mesh_terms: D001641:Bicuspid / Q000648:ultrastructure; D003748:Dental Equipment; D003786:Dental Pulp Cavity / Q000648:ultrastructure*; D004492:Edetic Acid / Q000627:therapeutic use; D004867:Equipment Design; D006801:Humans; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D008953:Models, Anatomic; D012388:Root Canal Irrigants / Q000627:therapeutic use; D018915:Root Canal Preparation; D016369:Smear Layer / Q000648:ultrastructure*; D012973:Sodium Hypochlorite / Q000627:therapeutic use
chemical_list: D012388:Root Canal Irrigants; D004492:Edetic Acid; D012973:Sodium Hypochlorite