Advertisement

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

Published:September 09, 2013DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.07.028

      Abstract

      Introduction

      The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different irrigating methods in removing the smear layer at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex of endodontic canals.

      Methods

      Sixty-five extracted single-rooted human mandibular premolars were decoronated to a standardized length of 16 mm. Specimens were shaped to ProTaper F4 (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl at 37°C. Teeth were divided into 5 groups (2 control groups [n = 10] and 3 test groups [n = 15]) according to the final irrigant activation/delivering technique (ie, sonic irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation [PUI], or apical negative pressure). Root canals were then split longitudinally and observed by field emission scanning electron microscopy. The presence of debris and a smear layer at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex was evaluated. Scores were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.

      Results

      The EndoActivator System (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) was significantly more efficient than PUI and the control groups in removing the smear layer at 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. The EndoVac System (Discus Dental, Culver City, CA) removed statistically significantly more smear layer than all groups at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. At 5 and 8 mm from the apex, PUI and the EndoVac did not differ statistically significantly, but both performed statistically better than the control groups.

      Conclusions

      In our study, none of the activation/delivery systems completely removed the smear layer from the endodontic dentine walls; nevertheless, the EndoActivator and EndoVac showed the best results at 3, 5, and 8 mm (EndoActivator) and 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm (EndoVac) from the apex.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Endodontics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Örstavik D.
        • Pitt Ford T.R.
        Essential Endodontology: Prevention and Treatment of Apical Periodontitis.
        2nd ed. Blackwell Munksgaard Ltd, Ames, IA2008: 1
        • Shilder H.
        Cleaning and shaping the root canal.
        Dent Clin North Am. 1974; 18: 269-296
        • Heard F.
        • Walton R.E.
        Scanning electron microscope study comparing four root canal preparation techniques in small curved canals.
        Int Endod J. 1997; 30: 323-331
        • Peters C.A.
        • Barbakow F.
        Effect of irrigation on debris and smear layer on canal walls prepared by two rotary techniques: a scanning electron microscopic study.
        J Endod. 2000; 25: 6-10
        • Örstavik D.
        • Haapasalo M.
        Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and dressings of experimentally infected dentinal tubules.
        Endod Dent Traumatol. 1990; 6: 142-149
        • White R.R.
        • Goldman M.
        • Lin P.S.
        The influence of the smeared layer upon dentinal tubule penetration by endodontic filling materials (part II).
        J Endod. 1987; 13: 369-374
        • Kennedy W.A.
        • Walker W.A.
        • Gough R.W.
        Smear layer removal effects on apical leakage.
        J Endod. 1986; 12: 21-27
        • Saunders W.P.
        • Saunders E.M.
        The effect of smear layer upon the coronal leakage of gutta-percha fillings and a glass ionomer sealer.
        Int Endod J. 1992; 25: 245-249
        • Zehnder M.
        Root canal irrigants.
        J Endod. 2006; 32: 389-398
        • Carson K.R.
        • Goodell G.G.
        • McClanahan S.B.
        Comparison of the antimicrobial activity of six irrigants on primary endodontic pathogens.
        J Endod. 2005; 31: 471-473
        • Ciucchi B.
        • Khettabi M.
        • Holz J.
        The effectiveness of different endodontic irrigation procedures on the removal of the smear layer: a scanning electron microscopic study.
        Int Endod J. 1989; 22: 21-28
        • Munoz H.R.
        • Camacho-Cuandra K.
        In vivo efficacy of three different endodontic irrigation systems for irrigant delivery to working length of mesial canals of mandibular molars.
        J Endod. 2012; 38: 445-448
        • Villas-Boas M.H.
        • Bernardineli N.
        • Cavalini Cavenago B.
        • et al.
        Micro–computed tomography study of the internal anatomy of mesial root canals of mandibular molars.
        J Endod. 2011; 37: 1682-1686
        • Tay F.R.
        • Gu L.S.
        • Schoeffel G.J.
        • et al.
        Effect of vapor lock on root canal debridement by using a side-vented needle for positive-pressure irrigant delivery.
        J Endod. 2010; 36: 745-750
        • Gu L.S.
        • Kim J.R.
        • Ling J.
        • et al.
        Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices.
        J Endod. 2009; 35: 791-804
        • de Gregorio C.
        • Estevez R.
        • Cisneros R.
        • et al.
        Effect of EDTA, sonic and ultrasonic activation on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into simulated lateral canals: an in vitro study.
        J Endod. 2009; 35: 891-895
        • Weller R.N.
        • Brady J.M.
        • Bernier W.E.
        Efficacy of ultrasonic cleaning.
        J Endod. 1980; 6: 740-743
        • Ahmad M.
        • Pitt Ford T.J.
        • Crum L.A.
        Ultrasonic debridement of root canals: acoustic streaming and its possible role.
        J Endod. 1987; 13: 490-499
        • Schoeffel G.J.
        The EndoVac method of endodontic irrigation: part 2—efficacy.
        Dent Today. 2008; 27 (82, 84, 86–87)
        • Nielsen B.A.
        • Baumgartner C.J.
        Comparison of the EndoVac system to needle irrigation of root canals.
        J Endod. 2007; 33: 611-615
        • Desai P.
        • Himel V.
        Comparative safety of various intracanal irrigation systems.
        J Endod. 2009; 35: 545-549
        • Hulsmann M.
        • Rummelin C.
        • Schafers F.
        Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative SEM investigation.
        J Endod. 1997; 23: 301-306
        • Perez-Heredia M.
        • Ferrer-Luque C.M.
        • Gonzalez-Rodrıguez M.P.
        The effectiveness of different acid irrigating solutions in root canal cleaning after hand and rotary instrumentation.
        J Endod. 2006; 32: 993-997
        • Crumpton B.J.
        • Goodell G.G.
        • McClanahan S.B.
        Effects on smear layer and debris removal with varying volumes of 17% REDTA after rotary instrumentation.
        J Endod. 2005; 31: 536-538
        • Teixeira C.S.
        • Felippe M.C.
        • Felippe W.T.
        The effect of application time of EDTA and NaOCl on intracanal smear layer removal: an SEM analysis.
        Int Endod J. 2005; 38: 285-290
        • Sabins R.A.
        • Johnson J.D.
        • Hellstein J.W.
        A comparison of the cleaning efficacy of short term sonic and ultrasonic passive irrigation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals.
        J Endod. 2003; 29: 674-678
        • Chopra S.
        • Murray P.E.
        • Namerow K.N.
        A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of the effectiveness of the F-file versus ultrasonic activation of a K-file to remove smear layer.
        J Endod. 2008; 34: 1243-1245
        • de Gregorio C.
        • Arias A.
        • Navarrete N.
        • et al.
        Effect of apical size and taper on volume of irrigant delivered at working length with apical negative pressure at different root curvatures.
        J Endod. 2013; 39: 119-124
        • Vera J.
        • Hernandez E.M.
        • Romero M.
        • et al.
        Effect of maintaining apical patency on irrigant penetration into the apical two millimeters of large root canals: an in vivo study.
        J Endod. 2012; 38: 1340-1343
        • Rodig T.
        • Dollmann S.
        • Konietschke F.
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of different irrigant agitation techniques on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a scanning electron microscopy study.
        J Endod. 2010; 36: 1983-1987
        • Uroz-Torres D.
        • Gonzalez-Rodriguez M.P.
        • Ferrer-Luque C.M.
        Effectiveness of the EndoActivator System in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation.
        J Endod. 2010; 36: 308-311
        • Lee S.J.
        • Wu M.K.
        • Wesselink P.R.
        The efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation to remove artificially placed dentin debris from different-sized simulated plastic root canals.
        Int Endod J. 2004; 37: 607-612
        • Alacam T.
        Scanning electron microscope study comparing the efficacy of endodontic irrigating systems.
        Int Endod J. 1987; 20: 287-294
        • Cameron J.A.
        The use of ultrasonics in the removal of the smear layer: a scanning electron microscope study.
        J Endod. 1983; 9: 289-292
        • El-Din Saber S.
        • Hashem A.A.
        Efficacy of different final irrigation activation techniques on smear layer removal.
        J Endod. 2011; 37: 1272-1275