Effectiveness of Different Irrigation Systems and Irrigants on Smear Layer Removal Using SEM: An in Vitro Study
- 1. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR)
Description
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the different irrigation systems and irrigants on the removal of the smear layer after instrumentation.
Methods: Ninety freshly extracted, single-rooted mandibular premolars prepared using NI-TI rotary files and subjected to different irrigation regimens Group 1: Endo Vac with NaOCl. Group 2: NaoCl/EDTA. Group 3: NaoCl/Citric acid Group. 4: Endo Activator with NaOCl Group 5: Endo Activator with NaOCl/EDTA Group 6: Endo Activator with NaOCl/Citric acid Group 7: 27 Gauge closed-end needle with NaOCl Group 8: 27 Gauge closed-end needle with NaOCl/EDTA Group 9: 27 Gauge closed-end needle with NaOCl/Citric acid. The roots were split longitudinally, and then SEM images were taken to evaluate the amount of residual SR.
Results: There is no statistically significant difference present between the cleaning efficiency of Endovac and Endoactivator in the coronal and middle location but statistically significant difference present in the apical region (p<0.05). There is a statistically significant difference present in various irrigant solutions. (p<0.05) NaOCl+EDTA, and NaOCl+citric acid irrigation sequence groups showed better smear layer removal when compared to NaOCl alone.
Conclusion: None of the irrigation systems or solutions eradicate the smear layer. Endovac performed better in the apical third when compared to Endoactivator and needle irrigation regarding the smear layer removal. Among the irrigation solutions, NaOCl alone has the least smear layer removal efficacy when compared to and NaOCl+Citric acid, NaOCl+EDTA irrigation sequence groups.
Files
GUDLURU.pdf
Additional details
Software
References
- 1. Mc Comb D, Smith DC. A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod. 1975;1(7):238-42. 2. Yamada RS, Armas A, Goldman M, Lin PS. A scanning electron microscopic comparison of a high volume final flush with several irrigating solutions Part 3. J Endod. 1983;9(4):137-42. 3. Torabinejad M, Handysides R, Khademi AA, Bakland LK. Clinical implications of the smear layer in endodontics: a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;94(6):658-66. 4. Orstavik D, Haapasalo M. Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and dressings of experimentally infected dentinal tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1990;6(4)142-9. 5. White RR, Goldman M, Lin PS. The influence of the smeared layer upon dentinal tubule penetration by plastic filling materials. J Endod. 1984;10(12):558-62. 6. Economides N, Liolios E, Kolokuris I, Beltes P. Long-term evaluation of the influence of smear layer removal on the sealing ability of different sealers. J Endod. 1999;25(2):123-5. 7. Kennedy WA, Walker WA 3rd, Gough RW. Smear layer removal effects on apical leakage. J Endod. 1986;12(1):21-7. 8. Drake DR, Wiemann AH, Rivera EM, Walton RE. Bacterial retention in canal walls in vitro: effect of smear layer. J Endod. 1994;20(2):78-82. 9. Clark-Holke D, Drake D, Walton R, Rivera E, Guthmiller JM. Bacterial penetration through canals of endodontically treated teeth in the presence or absence of the smear layer. J Dent. 2003;31(4):275-81. 10. Gulabivala K, Patel B, Evans G, Ng, Y-L. Effects of mechanical and chemical procedures on root canal surfaces. Endodontic Topics. 2005;10(1):103-22 11. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod. 2006;32(5):389-398 12. 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. 13. Wayman BE, Kopp WM, Pinero GJ, Lazzari EP. Citric and lactic acids as root canal irrigants in vitro. J Endod 1979;5(9):258-65. 14. Tay FR, Gu LS, Schoeffel GJ, et al. Effect of vapor lock on root canal debridement by using a side-vented needle for positive-pressure irrigant delivery. J Endod. 2010;36(4):745–750. 15. Slowey RR. Root canal anatomy. Road map to successful endodontics. Dent Clin N Am. 1979;23(4):555-73 16. Violich DR, Chandler NP. The smear layer in endodontics: A review. Int Endod J. 2010;43(1):2-15. 17. Munoz HR, Camacho-Cuandra 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 18. Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J, et al. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod. 2009;35(6):791-804 19. Jensen SA, Walker TL, Hutter JW, Nicoll BK. Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of passive sonic activation and passive ultrasonic activation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod. 1999;25(11):735-8. 20. Teixeira CS, Felippe MC, Felippe WT. The effect of application time of EDTA and NaOCl on intracanal smear layer removal: An SEM analysis. Int Endod J. 2005;38(5):285-90. 21. Di Lenarda R, Cadenaro M, Sbaizero O. Effectiveness of 1 mol L±1 citric acid and 15% EDTA irrigation on smear layer removal. Int Endod J. 2000;33(1):46-52. 22. Sedigheh Khedmat, Noushin Shokouhinejad. Comparison of the Efficacy of Three Chelating Agents in Smear Layer Removal. J Endod. 2008;34(5):599-602. 23. Ahir B, Parekh V, Katyayan MK, Katyayan PA. Smear layer removal efficacy of different irrigating solutions: A comparative scanning electron microscope evaluation. Indian J Dent Res. 2014;25(5):617-622. 24. Sanghamitra Suman, Promila Verma, Aseem Prakash-Tikku, Rhythm Bains, Vijay Kumar-Shakya. A Comparative Evaluation of Smear Layer Removal Using Apical Negative Pressure (EndoVac), Sonic Irrigation (EndoActivator), and Er: YAG laser: An In Vitro SEM Study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(8):e981-7. 25. Priyatam Karade, Rutuja Chopade, Suvarna Patil, Upendra Hoshing, Madhukar Rao, Neha Rane, et al. Efficiency of Different Endodontic Irrigation and Activation Systems in Removal of the Smear Layer: A Scanning Electron microscopy study. Iranian Endodontic Journal. 2017;12(4):414-41832. 26. Nielsen BA, Baumgartner JC. Comparison of the EndoVac system to needle irrigation of root canals. J Endod. 2007;33(5):611-5 27. Raffaella Castagnola, Carlo Lajolo, Irene Minciacchi, Gilda Cretella, Roberta Foti, Luca Marigo, et al. Efficacy of three different irrigation techniques in the removal of smear layer and organic debris from root canal wall: A scanning electron microscopy study. Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia. 2014;28(2):79-86 28. Plotino G, Pameijer CH, Grande NM, Somma F. Ultrasonics in endodontics: A review of the literature. J Endod. 2007;33(2):81-95. 29. Abarajithan M, Dham S, Velmurugan N, Valerian-Albuquerque D, Ballal S, Senthilkumar H. Comparison of EndoVac irrigation system with conventional irrigation for the removal of intracanal smear layer: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;112(3):407-11. 30. Uroz-Torres D, Gonza`lez-Rodrı`quez MPR, Ferrer-Luque CM. Effectiveness of the EndoActivator system in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation. J Endod. 2010;36(2):308-11.