Comparison of Smear Layer Removal Rate by 5.25% Sodium Hypochlorite and Ozone Gel with Ultrasonic Activation Ultrasonic Activation of Root Canal Irrigations and Smear Layer
Regeneration, Reconstruction & Restoration (Triple R),
Vol. 10 (2025),
1 January 2025
https://doi.org/10.22037/rrr.v10.49531
Abstract
Background and objectives: Root canal irrigation removes tissues and debris that instrumentation cannot eliminate. The present study compared the amount of smear layer removal by sodium hypochlorite and ozone gel activated with ultrasound waves as an irrigation solution in root canal treatment.
Materials and methods: A total of 130 single-rooted mandibular teeth that met the study’s inclusion criteria were selected. The tooth samples were prepared using the BioRaCe rotary system with the crown-down technique in five groups: group 1, irrigation with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite, followed by irrigation with 17% EDTA; group 2, irrigation with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite with ultrasonic activation, followed by irrigation with 17% EDTA; group 3, irrigation with ozone gel, followed by irrigation with 17% EDTA; group 4, irrigation with ozone gel with ultrasonic activation, followed by irrigation with 17% EDTA; and group 5, irrigation with 17% EDTA. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and post-hoc comparisons via SPSS v.21, with significance set at P < 0.05.
Results: Groups 1 and 2 exhibited a significant increase in smear layer removal compared to the group 5 (P < 0.001). Groups 3 and 4 did not show a significant change in smear layer removal compared to the control group (P > 0.05). Groupn2had the highest smear layer removal among the studied groups, which was statistically significant.
Conclusion: Ozone gel and ultrasound-activated ozone gel cannot replace sodium hypochlorite as root canal irrigation solutions.
- Irrigation
- Ozone
- Smear layer
- Ultrasonic activation
How to Cite
References
1. Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Wang Z, Gao Y. Irrigation in endodontics. British dental journal. 2014;216(6):299–303.
2. Plotino G, Colangeli M, Özyürek T, DeDeus G, Panzetta C, Castagnola R, et al. Evaluation of smear layer and debris removal by stepwise intraoperative activation (SIA) of sodium hypochlorite. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2021;25:237–45.
3. Violich D, Chandler N. The smear layer in endodontics–a
review. International endodontic journal. 2010;43(1):2–15.
4. Pashley DH. Dentin-predentin complex and its permeability: Physiologic overviwe. Journal of Dental
Research. 1985;64(4):613–20.
5. Shahravan A, Haghdoost A-A, Adl A, Rahimi H, Shadifar F. Effect of smear layer on sealing ability of canal obturation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of endodontics. 2007;33(2):96–105.
6. Gomes BP, Aveiro E, Kishen A. Irrigants and irrigation activation systems in Endodontics. Brazilian Dental Journal. 2023;34(4):1–33.
7. da Costa Lima GA, Aguiar CM, Câmara AC, Alves LC, Dos Santos FAB, do Nascimento AE. Comparison of smear layer removal using the Nd: YAG laser, ultrasound, ProTaper Universal system, and CanalBrush methods: an in vitro study. Journal of Endodontics. 2015;41(3):400–4.
8. Liu C, Li Q, Yue L, Zou X. Evaluation of sonic, ultrasonic, and laser irrigation activation systems to eliminate bacteria from the dentinal tubules of the root canal system. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2022;30:e20220199.
9. Goncalves LS, Rodrigues RCV, Junior CVA, Soares RG, Vettore MV. The effect of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine as irrigant solutions for root canal disinfection: a systematic review of clinical trials. Journal of endodontics. 2016;42(4):527–32.
10. Guivarc'h M, Ordioni U, Ahmed HMA, Cohen S, Catherine J-H, Bukiet F. Sodium hypochlorite accident: a systematic review. Journal of endodontics. 2017;43(1):16–24.
11. Trevino EG, Patwardhan AN, Henry MA, Perry G, Dybdal-Hargreaves N, Hargreaves KM, et al. Effect of irrigants on the survival of human stem cells of the apical papilla in a platelet-rich plasma scaffold in human root tips. Journal of endodontics. 2011;37(8):1109–15.
12. Prado M, Silva EJNLd, Duque TM, Zaia AA, Ferraz CCR, Almeida JFAd, et al. Antimicrobial and cytotoxic effects of phosphoric acid solution compared to other root canal irrigants. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2015;23(2):158–63.
13. Ring KC, Murray PE, Namerow KN, Kuttler S, Garcia-Godoy F. The comparison of the effect of endodontic irrigation on cell adherence to root canal dentin. Journal of endodontics. 2008;34(12):1474–9.
14. eng. ZMRciJoeM-PPE. oot canal irrigants. Journal of endodontics. 2006;23(3):285–9.
15. Fouad A. The microbial challenge to pulp regeneration. Advances in dental research. 2011;23(3):285–9.
16. Sinha N, Asthana G, Parmar G, Langaliya A, Shah J, Kumbhar A, et al. Evaluation of ozone therapy in endodontic treatment of teeth with necrotic pulp and apical periodontitis: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Endodontics. 2021;47(12):1820–8.
17. Lubojanski A, Dobrzynski M, Nowak N, Rewak-Soroczynska J, Sztyler K, Zakrzewski W, et al. Application of selected nanomaterials and ozone in modern clinical dentistry. Nanomaterials. 2021;11(2):259.
18. Mohammadi Z, Shalavi S, Soltani MK, Asgary S. A review of the properties and applications of ozone in endodontics: an update. Iranian endodontic journal. 2013;8(2):40.
19. Huth KC, Quirling M, Maier S, Kamereck K, Alkhayer M, Paschos E, et al. Effectiveness of ozone against endodontopathogenic microorganisms in a root canal biofilm model. International endodontic journal. 2009;42(1):3–13.
20. Noites R, Pina-Vaz C, Rocha R, Carvalho MF, Gonçalves A, Pina-Vaz I. Synergistic antimicrobial action of chlorhexidine and ozone in endodontic treatment. BioMed research international. 2014;2014(1):592423.
21. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral surgery, Oral medicine, Oral pathology. 1971;32(2):271–5.
22. Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes Jr DL. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. Journal of endodontics. 1997;23(2):77–85.
23. Musani I, Goyal V, Singh A, Bhat C. Evaluation and comparison of biological cleaning efficacy of two endofiles and irrigants as judged by microbial quantification in primary teeth—an in vivo study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2009;2(3):15.
24. Siqueira Jr JF, Lima KC, Magalhães FA, Lopes HP, de Uzeda M. Mechanical reduction of the bacterial population in the root canal by three instrumentation techniques. Journal of endodontics. 1999;25(5):332–5.
25. Hülsmann M, Rümmelin C, Schäfers F. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different rotary NiTi instruments and hand instruments. Journal of Endodontics. 1997;23(5):301-306.
26. Torabinejad M, Khademi AA, Babagoli J, Cho Y, Johnson WB, Bozhilov K, et al. A new solution for the removal of the smear layer. Journal of endodontics. 2003;29(3):170–5.
27. Estrela C, Estrela C, Decurcio D, Hollanda A, Silva J. Antimicrobial efficacy of ozonated water, gaseous ozone, sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine in infected human root canals. International endodontic journal. 2007;40(2):85–93.
28. Whitbeck ER, Swenson K, Tordik PA, Kondor SA, Webb TD, Sun J. Effect of EDTA preparations on rotary root canal instrumentation. Journal of endodontics. 2015;41(1):92–6.
29. M. Z. Root canal irrigants. Journal of endodontics. 2006;32(5):(5):389–98.
30. Van der Sluis L, Versluis M, Wu M, Wesselink P. Passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: a review of the literature. International endodontic journal. 2007;40(6):415–26.
31. Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L, Armellin E, Conte G, Cianconi L. Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, EndoVac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): field emission scanning electron microscopic evaluation in an in vitro study. Journal of endodontics. 2013;39(11):1456–60.
32. Karunakar P, Solomon RV, Kumar BS, Mounika G. Evaluation of smear layer removal of radicular Dentin in comparison with different irrigation devices: An: in vitro: study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics. 2021;24(3):236–40.
33. Schmidt TF, Teixeira CS, Felippe MC, Felippe WT, Pashley DH, Bortoluzzi EA. Effect of ultrasonic activation of irrigants on smear layer removal. Journal of endodontics. 2015;41(8):1359–63.
34. Suman S, Verma P, Prakash-Tikku A, Bains R, Kumar-Shakya V. A comparative evaluation of smear layer removal using apical negative pressure (EndoVac), sonic irrigation (EndoActivator) and Er: YAG laser-An in vitro SEM study. Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry. 2017;9(8):e981.
35. Al-Omiri MK, Alqahtani NM, Alahmari NM, Hassan RA, Al Nazeh AA, Lynch E. Treatment of symptomatic, deep, almost cariously exposed lesions using ozone. Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1):11166.
36. Boch T, Tennert C, Vach K, Al-Ahmad A, Hellwig E, Polydorou O. Effect of gaseous ozone on Enterococcus faecalis biofilm–an in vitro study. Clinical oral investigations. 2016;20:1733–9.
37. Üreyen Kaya B, Kececi A, Güldaş H, Çetin E, Öztürk T, Öksuz L, et al. Efficacy of endodontic applications of ozone
and low‐temperature atmospheric pressure plasma on root canals infected with Enterococcus faecalis. Letters in applied microbiology. 2014;58(1):8–15.
38. Neelakantan P, Herrera D, Pecorari V, Gomes B. Endotoxin levels after chemomechanical preparation of root canals with sodium hypochlorite or chlorhexidine: a systematic review of clinical trials and meta‐analysis. International Endodontic Journal. 2019;52(1):19–27.
39. Murugesan K, Vishwanath S, Kadandale S, Thanikachalam Y, Parthasarathy R, Ilango S. Comparative evaluation of smear layer removal in apical third using four different irrigants with ultrasonic agitation: An in vitro scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis. Cureus. 2022;14(3).
40. Case PD, Bird PS, Kahler WA, George R, Walsh LJ. Treatment of root canal biofilms of Enterococcus faecalis with ozone gas and passive ultrasound activation. Journal of endodontics. 2012;38(4):523–6.
- Abstract Viewed: 5 times
- PDF Downloaded: 1 times