Ultrasonic versus sonic activation of the final irrigant in root canals instrumented with rotary/reciprocating files: An in-vitro scanning electron microscopy analysis

Khalap, Neha Deepak; Kokate, Sharad R; Hegde, Vibha

doi:10.4103/0972-0707.186451

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The treatments conducted have shown that PUI and the EA system produce comparable smear layer removal results when used with rotary instrumentation [ 10 , 11 ]. To our knowledge, however, few studies have been conducted to compare both irrigation protocols in this respect, after single-file reciprocating instrumentation [ 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ex-vivo Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Two Activated Irrigation Techniques After Reciprocating Instrumentation in Curved Canals

Schiavotelo

Coelho

Rasquin

et al. 2017

TODENTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two activated irrigation techniques in removing the smear layer after single-file reciprocating instrumentation in curved canals.Materials and Methods:Sixty distobuccal roots of maxillary molars were standardized to create a closed system, and then instrumented using WaveOne Primary (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) instruments. Fifty-four specimens were randomly distributed into 3 groups for final irrigation: Non-activated irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and EndoActivator (EA;Dentsply Maillefer, Tulsa, USA) irrigation. All specimens received 3 mL of 17% EDTA for 1 minute, followed by irrigation with 6 mL of 2.5% NaOCl. The apical, middle and cervical thirds of the specimens were analyzed using scanning electronic microscopy (SEM), and the amount of remaining smear layer on the canal walls was rated by three examiners using a five-category scoring system. Kendall’s concordance coefficient was used to assess inter-rater agreement. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney (Bonferroni) tests were used to compare the scores.Results:Kendall’s concordance coefficient was ≥ 0.7, indicating an excellent level of agreement between the raters. No statistically significant difference in irrigation techniques efficacy for removal of the smear layer (p=0.061) was found for the apical third. The scores attributed to the specimens irrigated with the EA system were significantly lower than those of the other groups in the cervical and middle thirds (p< 0.05).Conclusions:The efficacy of the EA system in removing the smear layer in the cervical and middle thirds of root canals instrumented with reciprocating motion was significantly higher than that of either PUI or non-activated irrigation. Both EA and PUI performed similarly in apical third.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ex-vivo Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Two Activated Irrigation Techniques After Reciprocating Instrumentation in Curved Canals

Schiavotelo

Coelho

Rasquin

et al. 2017

TODENTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But in sonic system, no influence by lateral wall contact is seen. 19 In this study, it was seen that EndoActivator has more efficacy in removing smear layer than syringe irrigation. On the contrary a study done by Uroz-Torres et al 20 showed that there was no difference between Endoactivator and syringe irrigation in smear layer removal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

“…While in other study carried out by Khalap et al 19 it was concluded that sonic activation is better than ultrasonic activation in debris removal. The reason given was that PUI creates acoustic microstreaming producing enough shear stresses that disrupts debris from prepared canals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Comparative Evaluation of Smear Layer Removal Using Four Different Irrigation Techniques: An in-vitro Study

Chhabra¹,

Rana²,

Garg³

et al. 2019

IHRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: Irrigation is the vital part of root canal debridement. Usually post biomechanical preparation, the canal walls are covered by smear layer. It is important to remove this layer before obturation for better bond between the filling and walls. Conventional needle irrigation doesn’t give us adequate cleaning, therefore, new irrigation techniques are being tried to facilitate better smear layer removal. AIM: The aim was to evaluate and compare the smear layer removal by PATS, EndoActivator device, Passive ultrasonic irrigation and side vent needle irrigation from canal walls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 60 extracted mandibular premolars were instrumented up to 35/.04 with Heroshaper files. Samples were divided into 4 groups randomly before final irrigation as follows: Group I (n=15): Irrigation with side vent needles (Nexus ltd.,India), Group II (n=15): Irrigation with EndoActivator (Advanced Endodontics, Santa Barbara, CA ) Group III (n=15): Irrigation with PATS ( InnovationsEndo,India), Group IV (n=15): Irrigation with ultrasonic tips (Mani inc.). Teeth were split and one-half of each tooth was chosen for SEM examination. The images were taken at apical third and scoring was done according to criteria by Torabinejad et al in 2003. Data obtained were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by Mann–Whitney U-test for individual comparison. RESULTS: All irrigating systems remove smear layer but PUI has better cleaning ability as compared to other groups. CONCLUSION: Passive ultrasonic irrigation shows better smear layer removal as compared to other techniques

show abstract

“…To improve bacterial eradication, irrigants must be in close approximation to the root canal. The standard needle irrigation technique pushes the irrigant for a maximum of 1.1 mm beyond the needle tip (Khalap et al, 2016). Although sodium hypochlorite can infiltrate dentinal tubules, the extent of its penetration is affected by time, temperature, and concentration (Zou et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of bacterial removal from dentinal tubules with different irrigant agitation techniques: An in vitro study

Al-Obaida

Moukaddem

Allahem

et al. 2019

The Saudi Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimThis investigation was conducted to assess the ability of various irrigant agitation devices to eradicate Enterococcus faecalis from the dentinal tubules of extracted teeth.MethodologyFifty roots of extracted human teeth were instrumented to size 30 k with a 0.04 taper. The roots were autoclaved and then injected with E. faecalis. The canals were assigned to one of four intervention groups and disinfected using (A) standard needle irrigation, (B) EndoUltra® Ultrasonic Activator, (C) the EndoActivator system, or (D) EDDY sonic activation and to two control groups that were (E) treated with saline and (F) not inoculated with any bacteria. The roots were split in half, dyed with a LIVE/DEAD Back Light Bacterial Viability Kit, and then scanned with a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) to identify live/dead bacteria in the dentinal tubules.ResultsCLSM images revealed differences among the groups. Both the EndoUltra® Ultrasonic Activator group and the EDDY group had a combination of dead and live bacteria, while the EndoActivator group had mostly dead bacteria, in contrast to single needle irrigation which had mostly live bacteria. Activation of the irrigating solution resulted in more dead bacteria than standard needle irrigation at the coronal, middle, and apical parts of the roots. Overall, the EndoActivator system was superior to all other techniques in reducing live bacteria within the root canal.ConclusionActivation of sodium hypochlorite with sonic and ultrasonic systems dramatically reduced live bacteria contamination in the dentinal tubules of infected root canals.

show abstract

Ultrasonic versus sonic activation of the final irrigant in root canals instrumented with rotary/reciprocating files: An in-vitro scanning electron microscopy analysis

Cited by 22 publications

References 25 publications

Ex-vivo Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Two Activated Irrigation Techniques After Reciprocating Instrumentation in Curved Canals

Ex-vivo Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Two Activated Irrigation Techniques After Reciprocating Instrumentation in Curved Canals

Comparative Evaluation of Smear Layer Removal Using Four Different Irrigation Techniques: An in-vitro Study

Comparison of bacterial removal from dentinal tubules with different irrigant agitation techniques: An in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About