TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of irrigant activation devices and conventional needle irrigation on smear layer and debris removal in curved canals. (Smear layer removal from irrigant activation using SEM)
AU - Andreani, Yasmina
AU - Gad, Benjamin Thomas
AU - Cocks, Thomas Charles
AU - Harrison, Jonathan
AU - Keresztes, Mark Edward
AU - Pomfret, James Kennan
AU - Rees, Evan Benjamin
AU - Ma, Duoduo
AU - Baloun, Brett Lindsay
AU - Rahimi, Mehdi
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by grants from the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc, and the University of Sydney (Noel Martin Memorial Scholarship). The authors wish to acknowledge Dr Edward Waters for his statistical analysis, Ms Mara Cvejic, senior technical officer from the Institute of Dental Research at the Westmead Centre for Oral Health, for SEM technical assistance, Drs Muhannad Al‐wehwah and Mark Johnstone for their proof reading and A. Prof Vesna Miletic for her invaluable help with corrections.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Australian Society of Endodontology Inc
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - Aim To compare the effectiveness of smear layer and debris removal in the final rinse of curved canals of permanent molars using different commercially available irrigant activation devices. Methods The mesial roots of 74 extracted maxillary and mandibular molars were instrumented using the Mtwo nickel–titanium rotary system (VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany). They were then randomly assigned to one of three groups, varying in their final rinse protocol. Group 1 (n = 15) – conventional needle irrigation with 4% NaOCl; Group 2 (n = 19) – EndoActivator® (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK, USA) with 4% NaOCl; Group 3 (n = 17) – XP-endo® Finisher (FKG Dentaire SA, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) with 4% NaOCl. After the final rinse, all canals were flushed with 1 mL 15% EDTA for 60 s and then flushed with saline. The roots were split longitudinally and prepared for scanning electron microscope imaging. ImageJ for Windows was utilised to assess the images for smear layer removal, while two blinded investigators assessed debris presence in the middle and apical thirds using a 5-point scale. Results There was no significant difference in smear layer and debris removal between treatment and control groups in the same canal zones. A significant difference was noted across different canal zones both within and across the groups. Conclusion There is no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between activated irrigation techniques and manual activation. Further investigations are required to evaluate all methods available and determine the most efficient technique to irrigate successfully.
AB - Aim To compare the effectiveness of smear layer and debris removal in the final rinse of curved canals of permanent molars using different commercially available irrigant activation devices. Methods The mesial roots of 74 extracted maxillary and mandibular molars were instrumented using the Mtwo nickel–titanium rotary system (VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany). They were then randomly assigned to one of three groups, varying in their final rinse protocol. Group 1 (n = 15) – conventional needle irrigation with 4% NaOCl; Group 2 (n = 19) – EndoActivator® (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK, USA) with 4% NaOCl; Group 3 (n = 17) – XP-endo® Finisher (FKG Dentaire SA, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) with 4% NaOCl. After the final rinse, all canals were flushed with 1 mL 15% EDTA for 60 s and then flushed with saline. The roots were split longitudinally and prepared for scanning electron microscope imaging. ImageJ for Windows was utilised to assess the images for smear layer removal, while two blinded investigators assessed debris presence in the middle and apical thirds using a 5-point scale. Results There was no significant difference in smear layer and debris removal between treatment and control groups in the same canal zones. A significant difference was noted across different canal zones both within and across the groups. Conclusion There is no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between activated irrigation techniques and manual activation. Further investigations are required to evaluate all methods available and determine the most efficient technique to irrigate successfully.
KW - endodontics
KW - irrigation
KW - scanning electron microscopy
KW - smear layer
KW - sonic
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85102210367&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85102210367&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/aej.12482
DO - 10.1111/aej.12482
M3 - Article
C2 - 33682268
AN - SCOPUS:85102210367
VL - 47
SP - 143
EP - 149
JO - Australian Endodontic Journal
JF - Australian Endodontic Journal
SN - 0313-7384
IS - 2
ER -