No abstract

No abstract

Background Dentin conditioning can affect the adhesion of stem cells in endodontic regenerative treatments. This study aimed to assess the effects of the most commonly used endodontic irrigants, namely, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), MTAD, and QMix in comparison with Er:YAG laser (as a novel modality for root canal disinfection) on the adhesion of stem cells from the apical papilla (SCAPs) to dentin. Material and Methods Forty dentin specimens were prepared and subjected to different treatments in 5 groups (n=8) of control, irrigation with EDTA for 1 minute, irrigation with MTAD for 5 minutes, irrigation with QMix for 5 minutes, and Er:YAG laser irradiation. SCAPs were isolated from third molar tooth buds that two-thirds of their roots had formed. The cells were cultured on dentin specimens for 3 days and were counted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results MTAD resulted in significantly lower adhesion of cells to dentin compared with other groups ( P <0.05). All other modalities induced cell adhesion with no significant difference with each other ( P >0.05). Conclusions Despite many favorable properties, MTAD cannot serve as an optimal irrigant in endodontic regenerative procedures since it inhibits the adhesion of SCAPs to dentin and impairs an important step in tissue engineering. Key words: Endodontic Regeneration, Er-YAG laser, MTAD, QMix, EDTA, SCAP, stem cell adhesion.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of shockwave-enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming (SWEEPS) plus antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) using indocyanine green (ICG) for the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis biofilm from infected root canals. Materials and Methods: thirty sound human single-canal teeth were chosen and standardized to have 12 mm of root length. The root canals were shaped and prepared by means of ProTaper rotary files. After sterilization of the teeth, the canals were inoculated with E. faecalis for 2 weeks. The teeth were then randomly divided into six groups (n = five) of control, ICG, ICG + 808 nm diode laser, ICG + SWEEPS, ICG + 808 nm diode laser + SWEEPS, and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). Following treatment, the number of colony-forming units (CFUs)/mL were calculated for each group. Statistical analysis was carried out using one-way ANOVA. For multiple comparisons, Tukey’s test was used as the post hoc test. Results: NaOCl alone showed the highest efficacy (p < 0.001). The ICG + 808 nm diode laser + SWEEPS group displayed significantly lower amounts of bacteria than either the ICG + 808 nm diode laser or SWEEPS (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference detected between the ICG + 808 nm diode laser and ICG + SWEEPS (p = 0.035). Conclusions: SWEEPS can effectively increase the photosensitizer distribution in the root canal space, and its application along with irrigants can bring about promising results.