Comparative Analysis of Irrigation Techniques on Root Canal Cleanliness: Evaluating Traditional, Ultrasonic, Laser-Activated, and MechanicallyAssisted Methods for Debris and Smear Layer Removal
Authors/Creators
- 1. Senior Resident, Department of Dentistry, Anugrah Narayan Magadh Medical College & Hospital, Gaya, Bihar, India
Description
Background: Effective root canal cleaning is vital for the success of endodontic therapy. Traditional syringe irrigation often fails to adequately clean complex root canal anatomies, particularly in the apical third, necessitating the development of advanced irrigation techniques. Ultrasonic, laser-activated, and mechanically assisted irrigation systems aim to enhance the removal of debris and smear layers, improving treatment outcomes. Aim: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of traditional syringe irrigation, ultrasonic irrigation, laser-activated irrigation, and mechanically-assisted irrigation in removing debris and smear layers from root canals. Methods: Sixty extracted single-rooted teeth were randomly divided into four groups (n=15 per group), each subjected to one of the irrigation techniques. Root canals were prepared using a standardized protocol and evaluated for cleanliness in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc tests, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: Laser-activated irrigation achieved the highest cleaning efficacy, with mean scores of 2.0 ± 0.3 for debris and 2.2 ± 0.3 for smear layers. Mechanically-assisted irrigation also performed well (debris: 2.3 ± 0.4; smear layers: 2.5 ± 0.4). Ultrasonic irrigation showed moderate effectiveness, while traditional syringe irrigation was the least effective (debris: 4.1 ± 0.5; smear layers: 4.2 ± 0.4). Statistical analysis revealed significant differences among the groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Laser-activated irrigation proved to be the most effective technique for root canal cleaning, followed by mechanically-assisted irrigation. Ultrasonic irrigation demonstrated moderate performance, while traditional syringe irrigation showed limited efficacy, particularly in the apical third. Recommendations: The study highlights the need to incorporate advanced irrigation techniques such as laser-activated and mechanically-assisted systems for better clinical outcomes. Future clinical trials are recommended to validate these findings and assess their long-term impact.
Abstract (English)
Background: Effective root canal cleaning is vital for the success of endodontic therapy. Traditional syringe irrigation often fails to adequately clean complex root canal anatomies, particularly in the apical third, necessitating the development of advanced irrigation techniques. Ultrasonic, laser-activated, and mechanically assisted irrigation systems aim to enhance the removal of debris and smear layers, improving treatment outcomes. Aim: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of traditional syringe irrigation, ultrasonic irrigation, laser-activated irrigation, and mechanically-assisted irrigation in removing debris and smear layers from root canals. Methods: Sixty extracted single-rooted teeth were randomly divided into four groups (n=15 per group), each subjected to one of the irrigation techniques. Root canals were prepared using a standardized protocol and evaluated for cleanliness in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc tests, with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: Laser-activated irrigation achieved the highest cleaning efficacy, with mean scores of 2.0 ± 0.3 for debris and 2.2 ± 0.3 for smear layers. Mechanically-assisted irrigation also performed well (debris: 2.3 ± 0.4; smear layers: 2.5 ± 0.4). Ultrasonic irrigation showed moderate effectiveness, while traditional syringe irrigation was the least effective (debris: 4.1 ± 0.5; smear layers: 4.2 ± 0.4). Statistical analysis revealed significant differences among the groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Laser-activated irrigation proved to be the most effective technique for root canal cleaning, followed by mechanically-assisted irrigation. Ultrasonic irrigation demonstrated moderate performance, while traditional syringe irrigation showed limited efficacy, particularly in the apical third. Recommendations: The study highlights the need to incorporate advanced irrigation techniques such as laser-activated and mechanically-assisted systems for better clinical outcomes. Future clinical trials are recommended to validate these findings and assess their long-term impact.
Files
IJPCR,Vol16,Issue12,Article200.pdf
Files
(314.5 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:2fd402dda40ce0fb64b6d06f5173206b
|
314.5 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2024-12-18
Software
- Repository URL
- http://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/16/IJPCR,Vol16,Issue12,Article200.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Plotino G, Grande NM, Mercade M, et al. Efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation and the activation of sodium hypochlorite in removing smear layer and debris from curved root canals: A micro-computed tomography study. J Endod. 2019;45(9):1040-1046. 2. Urban K, Donnermeyer D, Schäfer E, Bürklein S. Canal cleanliness using different irrigation activation systems: A SEM evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(1):339-345. 3. DiVito E, Peters OA, Olivi G. Effectiveness of erbium:YAG laser in removing the smear layer. Lasers Med Sci. 2020;35(1):19-26. 4. Molina B, Glickman G, Vandrangi P, Khakpour M. Evaluation of root canal debridement of human molars using the GentleWave system. J Endod. 2021;47(1):118-123. 5. Park J-W, Kang M, Kim S. Advances in SEM techniques for evaluating endodontic treatments. Microsc Res Tech. 2022;85(7):1768- 1776. 6. Haupt F, Meinel M, Gunawardana A, Hülsmann M. Effectiveness of different activated irrigation techniques on debris and smear layer removal from curved root canals: a SEM evaluation. Aust Endod J. 2020. 7. Rajamanickam K, Teja K, Ramesh S, et al. Evaluation of root canal cleanliness on using a novel irrigation device with an ultrasonic activation technique: An Ex Vivo Study. Appl Sci. 2023. 8. Yang Q, Liu M, Zhu L, Peng B. Micro-CT study on the removal of accumulated hardtissue debris from the root canal system of mandibular molars when using a novel laseractivated irrigation approach. Int Endod J. 2019. 9. Wigler R, Srour Y, Wilchfort Y, Metzger Z, Kfir A. Debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: A comparative study of ultrasonic and sonic irrigant activation techniques. Dent J. 2024;12: [pages not provided].10. Di Spirito F, Pisano M, Caggiano M, et al. Root canal cleaning after different irrigation techniques: An Ex Vivo Analysis. Medicina. 2022;58. 11. Ivanusic T, Lukač M, Lukač N, Jezeršek M. SSP/SWEEPS Endodontics with the SkyPulse Er:YAG Dental Laser. 2019; 41:71-75. 12. Kurzmann C, Meire M, Lettner S, Farmakis E, Moritz A, De Moor RD. The efficacy of ultrasonic and PIPS (photon-induced acoustic streaming) irrigation to remove dentine debris. Lasers Med Sci. 2019; 35:719-28. 13. Barbosa A, Lima C, Sassone L, Fares RD, Fidalgo TK, Silva E. Effect of passive ultrasonic irrigation on hard tissue debris: A metaanalysis. Braz Oral Res. 2021;35: e123. 14. Aung N, Watanabe S, Okiji T. Er:YAG LaserActivated Irrigation in Comparison with Ultrasonic Systems. Photobiomed Photomed Laser Surg. 2021; 39:525-33. 15. Mancini M, Cerroni L, Palopoli P, et al. FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal in conservative canal preparations. BMC Oral Health. 2021; 21:427-35. 16. Iandolo A, Pisano M, Abdellatif D, et al. Smear layer and debris removal using ultrasonic-activated NaOCl. J Clin Med. 2023; 12:492- 500.