In Vitro Evaluation of Different Irrigation Protocols on Intracanal Smear Layer Removal in Teeth with or Without Pre-Endodontic Proximal Wall Restoration

Overview

Journal J Clin Med

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2020 Oct 21

PMID 33081209

Citations 20

Authors

Naji Kharouf

Eugenio Pedulla

Giusy Rita Maria La Rosa

Frederic Bukiet

Salvatore Sauro

Youssef Haikel

Davide Mancino

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

To investigate the influence of pre-endodontic coronal wall restoration on smear layer removal during different root canal irrigation strategies, single-root premolars were prepared with a mesio-occlusal cavity. Half were left untreated (G1), while the mesial walls of the remaining half were reconstructed using a resin composite (G2). The specimens were divided into control (ctrl) groups, which used the conventional needle irrigation method, and four experimental subgroups according to irrigation strategy: Sonic activation using the Endoactivator, sonic activation using the EQ-S, mechanical activation using the XP-Endo finisher, and ultrasonic activation using the EndoUltra. Smear layer removal was assessed through SEM and the results were statistically analyzed. At the coronal and middle thirds, no significant difference ( > 0.05) was detected for G1 and G2, except for the control subgroups (G1ctrl vs G2 ctrl) at the middle third. At the apical third, the smear layer removal was significantly greater for G2 than G1. In G1, both at the middle and apical level, EQ-S and EndoUltra showed greater smear layer removal ( < 0.05) compared to the others G1 subgroups. In G2, at the apical level, the EQ-S and EndoUltra were the most effective in smear layer removal. Pre-endodontic coronal wall restoration may improve the smear layer removal during root canal irrigation.

Citing Articles

Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Different Chelating Agents on Mineral Content and Erosion of Radicular Dentine: A FESEM-EDS Analysis.

Kadulkar N, Kataki R, Deka A, Medhi H, Chakraborty S, Singh A Eur Endod J. 2023; 9(1):73-80.

PMID: 38157281 PMC: 10777092. DOI: 10.14744/eej.2023.19971.

The Contribution of Various In Vitro Methodologies to Comprehending the Filling Ability of Root Canal Pastes in Primary Teeth.

El Hachem C, Chedid J, Nehme W, Kaloustian M, Ghosn N, Rabineau M Bioengineering (Basel). 2023; 10(7).

PMID: 37508845 PMC: 10376379. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10070818.

Stronger than Ever: Multifilament Fiberglass Posts Boost Maxillary Premolar Fracture Resistance.

Kharouf N, Pedulla E, Plotino G, Jmal H, Alloui M, Simonis P J Clin Med. 2023; 12(8).

PMID: 37109310 PMC: 10143755. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12082975.

Effect of Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation, Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, and Photon-Induced Photoacoustic Streaming against Biofilms in the Apical Third of Root Canals.

Seghayer I, Lee A, Cheung G, Zhang C Bioengineering (Basel). 2023; 10(4).

PMID: 37106677 PMC: 10135464. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering10040490.

Effect of Continuous Chelation Irrigation Using DualRinse HEDP+3% NaOCl with or without High-power Sonic Activation on Debris and Smear Layer Removal.

Aoun C, Rechenberg D, Karam M, Mhanna R, Plotino G, Zogheib C Eur Endod J. 2023; 8(2):162-169.

PMID: 37010200 PMC: 10098435. DOI: 10.14744/eej.2022.93064.

References

Alacam T . Scanning electron microscope study comparing the efficacy of endodontic irrigating systems. Int Endod J. 1987; 20(6):287-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1987.tb00629.x. View

Blank-Goncalves L, Nabeshima C, Martins G, Machado M . 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. View

Lorono G, Zaldivar J, Arias A, Cisneros R, Dorado S, Jimenez-Octavio J . Positive and negative pressure irrigation in oval root canals with apical ramifications: a computational fluid dynamics evaluation in micro-CT scanned real teeth. Int Endod J. 2019; 53(5):671-679. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13260. View

Caron G, Nham K, Bronnec F, Machtou P . Effectiveness of different final irrigant activation protocols on smear layer removal in curved canals. J Endod. 2010; 36(8):1361-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.03.037. View

Pedulla E, Genovese C, Messina R, LA Rosa G, Corsentino G, Rapisarda S . Antimicrobial efficacy of cordless sonic or ultrasonic devices on Enterococcus faecalis-infected root canals. J Investig Clin Dent. 2019; 10(4):e12434. DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12434. View

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. J Endod. 2013; 39(11):1456-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.07.028. View

McComb D, Smith D . A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod. 1975; 1(7):238-42. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(75)80226-3. View

Plotino G, Ozyurek T, Grande N, Gundogar M . Influence of size and taper of basic root canal preparation on root canal cleanliness: a scanning electron microscopy study. Int Endod J. 2018; 52(3):343-351. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13002. View

Bao P, Shen Y, Lin J, Haapasalo M . In Vitro Efficacy of XP-endo Finisher with 2 Different Protocols on Biofilm Removal from Apical Root Canals. J Endod. 2016; 43(2):321-325. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.09.021. View

10.

Jiang L, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, van der Sluis L . Evaluation of a sonic device designed to activate irrigant in the root canal. J Endod. 2009; 36(1):143-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.06.009. View

11.

Gutmann J, Saunders W, Nguyen L, Guo I, Saunders E . Ultrasonic root-end preparation. Part 1. SEM analysis. Int Endod J. 1994; 27(6):318-24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1994.tb00276.x. View

12.

Mancino D, Kharouf N, Hemmerle J, Haikel Y . Microscopic and Chemical Assessments of the Filling Ability in Oval-Shaped Root Canals Using Two Different Carrier-Based Filling Techniques. Eur J Dent. 2019; 13(2):166-171. PMC: 6777156. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1695661. View

13.

Elnaghy A, Mandorah A, Elsaka S . Effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher, EndoActivator, and File agitation on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a comparative study. Odontology. 2016; 105(2):178-183. DOI: 10.1007/s10266-016-0251-8. View

14.

Gutarts R, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M . In vivo debridement efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation following hand-rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars. J Endod. 2005; 31(3):166-70. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000137651.01496.48. View

15.

Passalidou S, Calberson F, De Bruyne M, De Moor R, Meire M . Debris Removal from the Mesial Root Canal System of Mandibular Molars with Laser-activated Irrigation. J Endod. 2018; 44(11):1697-1701. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.06.007. View

16.

Turkun M, Cengiz T . The effects of sodium hypochlorite and calcium hydroxide on tissue dissolution and root canal cleanliness. Int Endod J. 1998; 30(5):335-42. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1997.00085.x. View

17.

Schneider S . A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971; 32(2):271-5. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1. View

18.

Kokkas A, Boutsioukis A, Vassiliadis L, Stavrianos C . The influence of the smear layer on dentinal tubule penetration depth by three different root canal sealers: an in vitro study. J Endod. 2004; 30(2):100-2. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200402000-00009. View

19.

Wu M, Roris A, Barkis D, Wesselink P . Prevalence and extent of long oval canals in the apical third. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000; 89(6):739-43. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2000.106344. View

20.

Azimian S, Bakhtiar H, Azimi S, Esnaashari E . effect of XP-Endo finisher on the amount of residual debris and smear layer on the root canal walls. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2019; 16(3):179-184. PMC: 6474170. View