Efficacy of four different irrigation techniques combined with 60°C 3% sodium hypochlorite and 17% EDTA in smear layer removal

BMC Oral Health

Ligeng Wu¹  Yan Lu¹  Dongyan Zhou²  Shasha Zhang³  Lei Li¹  Hui Miao¹  Xiangjun Guo¹ 

[1] From the Department of Endodontics, School of Stomatology, Tianjin Medical University, #12 Qi Xiang Tai Road, He Ping District, Tianjin 300070, PR China;The Department of Stomatology, The second Hospital of Jiaxing, Zhejiang, China;Stomatological Hospital of Nankai University, Stomatological Hospital of Nankai University, Tianjin, China

关键词: Sodium hypochlorite;    Smear layer;    Ultrasonic irrigation;    Irrigant activation;    EndoActivator;    EDTA;   

Others  :  1091839
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6831-14-114

 received in 2014-03-12, accepted in 2014-09-03,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Efforts to improve the efficacy of smear layer removal by applying irrigant activation at the final irrigation or by elevating the temperature of the irrigant have been reported. However, the combination of such activation protocols with 60°C 3% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) has seldom been mentioned. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy in smear layer removal of four different irrigation techniques combined with 60°C 3% NaOCl and 17% EDTA.

Methods

Fifty single-rooted teeth were randomly divided into five groups (n = 10) according to the irrigant agitation protocols used during chemomechanical preparation(Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland): a side-vented needle group, a ultrasonic irrigation (UI) group, a NaviTip FX group, an EndoActivator group, and a control group (no agitation). After each instrumentation, the root canals were irrigated with 1 mL of 3% NaOCl at 60°C for 1 minute, and after the whole instrumentation, the root canals were rinsed with 1 mL of 17% EDTA for 1 minute. Both NaOCl and EDTA were activated with one of the five irrigation protocols. The efficacy of smear layer removal was scored at the apical, middle and coronal thirds. The Data were statistically analyzed using SAS version 9.2 for Windows (rank sum test for a randomised block design and ANOVA).

Results

No significant differences among the NaviTip FX group, EndoActivator group and control groups, and each of these groups showed a lower score than that of UI group (P < 0.05). Within each group, all three thirds were ranked in the following order: coronal > middle > apical (P < 0.05). In the coronal third, the NaviTip FX group was better than UI group. In the middle and apical third, the differences were not significant among any of the groups.

Conclusions

Even without any activation, the combination of 60°C 3% NaOCl and 17% EDTA could remove the smear layer effectively, similar to NaviTip FX or EndoActivator, and these three protocols were more effective than UI. However, regardless of different types of irrigation technique applied, complete removal of the smear layer was not achieved, particularly in the apical third.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Guo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Haapasalo M, Endal U, Zandi H, Coil JM: Eradication of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation solutions. Endod Topics 2005, 10:77-102.
• [2]Sen BH, Wesselink PR, Turkun M: The smear layer:a phenomenon in root canal therapy. Int Endod J 1995, 28:141-148.
• [3]Torabinejad M, Handysides R, Khademi AA, Bakland LK: Clinical implications of the smear layer in endodontics: a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002, 94:658-666.
• [4]Carvalho AS, Camargo CH, Valera MC, Camargo SE, Mancini MN, Mancini MN: Smear layer removal by auxiliary chemical substances in biomechanical preparation: A scanning electron microscope study. J Endod 2008, 34:1396-1400.
• [5]Wu L, Mu Y, Deng X, Zhang S, Zhou D: Comparison of the effect of four decalcifying agents combined with 60°C 3% sodium hypochlorite on smear layer removal. J Endod 2012, 38:381-384.
• [6]Peters OA, 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, 26:6-10.
• [7]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, 31:166-170.
• [8]Sirtes G, Waltimo T, Schaetzle M, Zehnder M: The effects of temperature on sodium hypochlorite short-term stability, pulp dissolution capacity, and antimicrobial efficacy. J Endod 2005, 31:669-671.
• [9]de Vasconcelos BC, Luna-Cruz SM, De-Deus G, de Moraes IG, Maniglia-Ferreira C, Gurgel-Filho ED: Cleaning ability of chlorhexidine gel and sodium hypochlorite associated or not with EDTA as root canal irrigants: scanning electron microscopy study. J App Oral Sci 2007, 15:387-391.
• [10]Lui JN, Kuah HG, Chen NN: Effect of EDTA with and without surfactants or ultrasonics on removal of smear layer. J Endod 2007, 33:472-475.
• [11]Chopra S, Murray PE, Namerow KN: 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.
• [12]Mello I, Robazza CR, Antoniazzi JH, Coil J: Influence of different volumes of EDTA for final rinse on smear layer removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008, 106:e40-e43.
• [13]Takeda FH, Harashima T, Kimura Y, Matsumoto K: A comparative study of the removal of smear layer by three endodontic irrigants and two types of laser. Int Endod J 1999, 32:32-39.
• [14]Yamazaki AK, Moura-Netto C, Salgado RJ, Kleine BM, Prokopowitsch I: Ex vivo analysis of root canal cleaning using Endo-PTC associated to NaOCl and different irrigant solutions. Braz Oral Res 2010, 24:15-20.
• [15]Khedmat S, Shokouhinejad N: Comparison of the efficacy of three chelating agents in smear layer removal. J Endod 2008, 34:599-602.
• [16]Mozayeni MA, Javaheri GH, Poorroosta P, Ashari MA, Javaheri HH: Effect of 17% EDTA and MTAD on intracanal smear layer removal: a scanning electron microscopic study. Aust Endod J 2009, 35:13-17.
• [17]Rossi-Fedele G, De Figueiredo JA: Use of a bottle warmer to increase 4% sodium hypochlorite tissue dissolution ability on bovine pulp. Aust Endod J 2008, 34:39-42.
• [18]Abou-Rass M, Oglesby SW: The effects of temperature, concentration, and tissue type on the solvent ability of sodium hypochlorite. J Endod 1981, 7:376-377.
• [19]Stojicic S, Zivkovic S, Qian W, Zhang H, Haapasalo M: Tissue dissolution by sodium hypochlorite: effect of concentration, temperature, agitation, and surfactant. J Endod 2010, 36:1558-1562.
• [20]Martin H, Cunningham MJ, Morris JP, Cotton WR: Ultrasonic versus hand filing of dentine: a quantitative study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1980, 49:79-81.
• [21]Guerisoli DM, Marchesan MA, Walmsley AD, Lumley PJ, Pecora JD: Evaluation of smear layer removal by EDTAC and sodium hypochlorite with ultrasonic agitation. Int Endod J 2002, 35:418-421.
• [22]Mayer BE, Peters OA, Barbakow F: Effects of rotary instruments and ultrasonic irrigation on debris and smear layer scores: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 2002, 35:582-589.
• [23]Zmener O, Pameijer CH, Serrano SA, Palo RM, Iglesias EF: Efficacy of the NaviTip FX irrigation needle in removing post instrumentation canal smear layer and debris in curved root canals. J Endod 2009, 35:1270-1273.
• [24]Uroz-Torres D, González-Rodríguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM: Effectiveness of the EndoActivator system in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation. J Endod 2010, 36:308-311.
• [25]Rödig T, Döllmann S, Konietschke F, Drebenstedt S, Hülsmann M: 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.
• [26]Saber S, Hashem A: Efficacy of different final irrigation activation techniques on smear layer removal. J Endod 2011, 37:1272-1275.
• [27]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, 36:1361-1366.
• [28]Herrera DR, Santos ZT, Tay LY, Silva EJ, Loguercio AD, Gomes BP: Efficacy of different final irrigant activation protocols on smear layer removal by EDTA and citric acid. Microsc Res Tech 2013, 76:364-369.
• [29]Frais S, Ng YL, Gulabivala K: Some factors affecting the concentration of available chlorine in commercial sources of sodium hypochlorite. Int Endod J 2001, 34:206-215.
• [30]Dadresanfar B, Khalilak Z, Delvarani A, Mehrvarzfar P, Vatanpour M, Pourassadollah M: Effect of ultrasonication with EDTA or MTAD on smear layer, debris and erosion scores. J Oral Sci 2011, 53:31-36.
• [31]Al-Hadlaq SM, Al-Turaiki SA, Al-Sulami U, Saad AY: Efficacy of a new brush-covered irrigation needle in removing root canal debris: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2006, 32:1181-1184.