Mostrar registro simples

dc.contributor.authorSouza, Matheus Albinopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorBonatto, Fernanda Dudapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorSilva, Afonso Cristiano Fleck dapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorGabrielli, Ezequiel Santinpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorMotter, Felipe Trentinpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorPiuco, Larissapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorPaula, Karen Barea dept_BR
dc.contributor.authorBertol, Charise Dallazempt_BR
dc.contributor.authorRossato, Luciana Grazziotinpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorLago, Carlo Theodoro Raimundypt_BR
dc.contributor.authorCecchin, Doglaspt_BR
dc.contributor.authorBervian, Julianept_BR
dc.contributor.authorDe Carli, João Paulopt_BR
dc.contributor.authorMontagner, Franciscopt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-12T04:44:00Zpt_BR
dc.date.issued2021pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn1516-3725pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10183/237012pt_BR
dc.description.abstractThe present research analyzed the reciprocating instrumentation associated to chlorhexidine (CHX) substantivity as its correlation with E. faecalis viabilityin ex vivoroot canals. Eighty extracted single-rooted human teeth were used, being 40 to high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and 40 to confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). In both, teeth were decoronated and the cervical third was prepared. In the CLSM analysis, the root canals were inoculated with E. faecalisfor 14 days. Samples were divided into 4 groups (n=10) according to instrumentation technique: no instrumentation and irrigation with distilled water (control); manual instrumentation (K-File); rotary instrumentation (ProTaper Next); and reciprocating instrumentation (Reciproc R25). Two percent chlorhexidine was applied as irrigating substance in experimental groups. Longitudinal grooves resulted in 2 halves root and 20 proof bodies in each group. Samples were divided by chance in two groups (n=10) and theoutcomes were evaluated after two days and one week. The retained chlorhexidine and live cells after instrumentation techniques in each evaluation time was measured by HPLC and CLSM, respectively. Specific analysis was applied for experimental tests (p≤0.05). Both rotary as well as reciprocating techniques significantly reduced the amount of chlorhexidine on dentin in all observation periods (p<0.05). After evaluation times, all experimental groups presented lower live cells compared to control, but without statistically difference. Intragroup comparisons in times of evaluation showed no differences in instrumentation techniques, in chlorhexidine retention and number of live cells (p>0.05). Reciprocating instrumentation does not interfere on chlorhexidine substantivity.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfpt_BR
dc.language.isoengpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofBioscience journal. Uberlândia. Vol. 37, (2021), e37038, 9 p.pt_BR
dc.rightsOpen Accessen
dc.subjectCromatografiapt_BR
dc.subjectChromatographyen
dc.subjectEnterococcus faecalispt_BR
dc.subjectHuman Toothen
dc.subjectRoot Canal Preparationen
dc.subjectPreparo de canal radicularpt_BR
dc.subjectDentinapt_BR
dc.titleEffect of reciprocating instrumentation on chlorhexidine substantivity on human dentin: chemical analysis followed by confocal laser microscopypt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de periódicopt_BR
dc.identifier.nrb001136704pt_BR
dc.type.originNacionalpt_BR


Thumbnail
   

Este item está licenciado na Creative Commons License

Mostrar registro simples