A Comparative Evaluation of Smear Layer Removal Using Erbium:YAG Laser-Activated Irrigation, Sonic Irrigation, and Manual Dynamic Irrigation: A Scanning Electron Microscope Study Comparative Evaluation of Smear Layer Removal
Journal of Lasers in Medical Sciences,
Vol. 12 (2021),
13 Bahman 2021
,
Page e22
Abstract
Introduction: The conventional chemomechanical procedures are ineffective incomplete disinfection of the pulp space due to the complexities of the root canal architecture. The present study aims to compare the efficacy of erbium: YAG laser-activated irrigation, sonic irrigation, and manual dynamic irrigation in the removal of the smear layer through a scanning electron microscope study.
Methods: Fifty extracted single-rooted mandibular premolars with a single canal were used and instrumented until F3 ProTaper rotary file reached the working length. Upon the completion of the canal preparation, each specimen was irrigated with 3 mL of 4% NaOCl for 3 minutes, 3 mL saline for 1 minute, and 3 mL of 17% EDTA for 3 minutes. The teeth were assigned to three experimental groups (n=15 each): manual dynamic irrigation, sonic irrigation (EndoActivator), and Er: YAG laser using an X pulse tip. Root canals were sectioned longitudinally and the smear layer at the apical, middle, and coronal third was examined under a scanning electron microscope. Smear layer scores were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests at P=0.05.
Results: The Er: YAG laser group showed significantly lower smear layer scores in the apical third as compared to all other groups. EndoActivator resulted in better cleaning efficacy at the apical area compared to manual dynamic agitation.
Conclusion: This study showed results in favor of Er:YAG with an X-pulse tip followed by EndoActivator activation.
- Smear layer; Erbium:YAG laser-activated irrigation; Sonic irrigation; Manual dynamic agitation
How to Cite
References
McComb D, Smith DC. A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod. 1975;1:238–42. doi:10.1016/s0099-2399(75)80226-3
Elnaghy AM, Mandorah A, Elsaka SE. Effectiveness of XP-endo finisher, Endoactivator and File agitation on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a comparative study. Odontology. 2017 Apr;105(2):178-183. doi:10.1007/s10266-016-0251-8
Heilborn C, Johnson JD, Cohenca N. Cleaning efficacy of an apical negative-pressure irrigation system at different exposure times. Quintessence Int. 2010; 41:759-67.
DiVito E, Peters OA, Olivi G. Effectiveness of the erbium:YAG laser and new design radial and stripped tips in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation. Lasers Med Sci. 2012;27(2):273-280. doi:10.1007/s10103-010-0858-x
. Martinho FC, Gomes BP. Quantification of endotoxins and cultivable bacteria in root canal infection before and after chemomechanical preparation with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. J Endod. 2008; 34:268–272. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2007.11.015
George R, Meyers IA, Walsh LJ. Laser activation of endodontic irrigants with improved conical laser fiber tips for removing smear layer in the apical third of the root canal. J Endod. 2008;34(12):1524-1527. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2008.08.029
De Groot SD, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, Wu M-K, Wesselink PR, van der Sluis LWM. Laser-activated irrigation within root canals: Cleaning efficacy and flow visualization. Int Endod J. 2009;42(12):1077-1083. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01634.x
De Moor RJG, Meire M, Goharkhay K, Moritz A, Vanobbergen J. Efficacy of ultrasonic versus laser-activated irrigation to remove artificially placed dentin debris plugs. J Endod. 2010;36(9):1580-1583. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2010.06.007
DiVito E, Colonna MP, Olivi G. The photoacoustic efficacy of an Er:YAG laser with radial and stripped tips on root canal dentin walls: An SEM evaluation. J Laser Dent. 2011;19(1):156- 161.
Kandaswamy D, Venkateshbabu N. Root canal irrigants. J Conserv Dent. 2010; 13:256-64. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.73378
Mickel AK, Chogle S, Liddle J, Huffaker K, Jones JJ. The role of apical size determination and enlargement in the reduction of intracanal bacteria. J Endod. 2007 Jan;33(1):21-3. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.08.004.
Khademi A, Yazdizadeh M, Feizianfard M. Determination of the minimum instrumentation size for penetration of irrigants to the apical third of root canal system. J Endod. 2006;32(5):417-20. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.11.008
Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L. et al. FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal using different irrigant activation methods (EndoActivator, Endovac, PUI and LAI). An in vitro study. Clin Oral Invest. 2017 Jul; 18:251-258. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2179-y.
Tay FR, Gu LS, Schoeffel GJ, Wimmer C, Susin L, Zhang K, Arun SN, Kim J, Looney SW, Pashley DH. Effect of vapor lock on root canal debridement by using a side vented needle for positive pressure irrigant delivery. J Endod.2010;36(4):745-50. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.11.022
Andrabi SM, Kumar A, Zia A, Iftekhar H, Alam S, Siddiqui S. Effect of passive ultrasonic irrigation and manual dynamic irrigation on smear layer removal from root canals in a closed apex in vitro model. J Investig Clin Dent. 2014 Aug;5(3):188-93. doi: 10.1111/jicd.12033.
Ruddle CJ. Predictably successful endodontics, Dent Today 2014;33(6):104-107.
Ruddle CJ. Endodontic disinfection: tsunami irrigation, Endod Pract. 2008;11(1): 7-15.
Arslan D, Guneser MB, Dincer AN, Kustarci A, Er K, Siso SH: Comparison of smear layer removal ability of QMix with different activation techniques. J Endod. 2016;42(8):1279-1285. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.04.022.
Albrecht LJ, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG: Evaluation of apical debris removal using various sizes and tapers of profile GT files. J Endod. 2004; 30(6):425-428. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200406000-00012.
Kanter V, Weldon E, Nair U, Varella C, Kanter K, Anusavice K, Pileggi R: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of ultrasonic versus sonic endodontic systems on canal cleanliness and obturation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;112(6):809-813. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.06.00221.
Blank-Goncalves LM, Nabeshima CK, Martins GH, Machado ME. Qualitative analysis of the removal of the smear layer in the apical third of curved roots: conventional irrigation versus activation systems. J Endod 2011;37(9):1268-71. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.06.009.
De Gregorio C, Estevez R, Cisneros R, Paranjpe A, Cohenca N. Efficacy of different irrigation and activation systems on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into simulated lateral canals and up to working length: an in vitro study. J Endod 2010;36(7):1216-21. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.02.019.
Blanken J, De Moor RJ, Meire M, Verdaasdonk R. Laser induced explosive vapor and cavitation resulting in effective irrigation of the root canal. Part 1: a visualization study. Lasers Surg Med. 2009; 41:514–519. doi: 10.1002/lsm.20798.
Cheng X, Guan S, Lu H, Zhao C, Chen X, Li N et al. Evaluation of the bactericidal effect of Nd:YAG, Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG laser radiation, and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in experimentally infected root canals. Lasers Surg Med 2012; 44:824–831. doi:10.1002/lsm.22092
Cheng X, Chen B, Qiu J, He W, Lv H, Qu T, et al. Bactericidal effect of Er:YAG laser combined with sodium hypochlorite irrigation against Enterococcus faecalis deep inside dentinal tubules in experimentally infected root canals. J Med Microbiol 2016;65:176–187. doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.000205
Peeters HH, Suardita K. Efficacy of smear layer removal at the root tip by using ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and erbium, chromium: yttrium, scandium, gallium garnet laser. J Endod. 2011;37:1585–1589. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.08.022.
Arslan D, Guneser MB, Dincer AN, Kustarci A, Er K, Siso SH. Comparison of smear layer removal ability of Q Mix with different activation techniques. J Endod. 2016;42:1279–1285. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.04.022
DiVito E, Peters OA, Olivi G. Effectiveness of the erbium:YAG laser and new design radial and stripped tips in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:273-280. doi: 10.1007/s10103-010-0858-x.
De Moor R, Meire M. REVIEW: High-Power Lasers in Endodontics - Fiber Placement for Laser-Enhanced Endodontics: In the Canal or at the Orifice? J LA&HA 2014; 1:20-28.
Olivi G Laser Use in Endodontics: Evolution from Direct Laser Irradiation to Laser-Activated Irrigation. J Laser Dent. 2013;21(2):58-71
Guidotti R, Merigo E, C Fornaini, Rocca JP, Medioni E, Vescovi P. Er:YAG 2,940-nm laser fiber in endodontic treatment: a help in removing smear layer. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29:69-75. doi: 10.1007/s10103-012-1217-x
De Groot SD, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, Wu MK, Wesselink PR, van der Sluis. LW. Laser-activated irrigation within root canals: cleaning efficacy and flow visualization. Int Endod J. 2009;42:1077-83. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01634.x
- Abstract Viewed: 935 times
- PDF Downloaded: 602 times