FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal from conservatively shaped canals: laser activated irrigation (PIPS and SWEEPS) compared to sonic and passive ultrasonic activation—an ex vivo study

BMC Oral Health

Giovanni Olivi¹  Pietro Palopoli²  Luigi Cianconi³  Loredana Cerroni³  Manuele Mancini³  Cristiano Buoni⁴  Matteo Olivi⁴ 

[1]Catholic University of the Sacred Hearth of Rome

[2]Department of Surgical Sciences, Dental School, Endodontics, University of Turin

[3]Department of Translational Medicine and Clinical Science, University of Rome “Tor Vergata”

[4]Private Practice

关键词: Smear layer removal;    Conservative canal shaping;    Sonic activation;    PUI;    PIPS;    SWEEPS;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12903-021-01427-0

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract Background Irrigation of the pulp space is a mandatory step to get rid of all its organic and inorganic content. Activation of the irrigants play a key role in the era of minimally invasive endodontics. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of different irrigants activation methods in removing the smear layer at 1, 3, 5 and 8 mm from the apex from conservatively shaped canals. Methods Eighty-five human mandibular premolars were selected. Specimens were shaped to TruShape 25/.06 and divided into 5 groups (1 control and 4 test groups) according to the final activation technique (EndoActivator, EA), Ultrasonic (EndoUltra, PUI) and Laser (PIPS and SWEEPS). EDTA (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) followed by NaOCl (Sodium Hypochlorite) and again EDTA were activated for each test group. Specimens were then split longitudinally and observed by Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM). Blinded evaluation of the presence of smear layer was performed at 1000X magnification, according to a 5-score index system. Comparison between groups were analysed statistically using the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric analysis of variance. Bonferroni multiple comparison tests were used. Results At 1 mm only PIPS and SWEEPS performed better than the control group. At 3, 5 and 8 mm from the apex, every activation technique showed statistically significant reduction of smear layer when compared to the control group. PIPS and SWEEPS obtained better cleanliness result compared to EA, while only PIPS was superior to PUI in terms of cleanliness. Conclusions PIPS and SWEEPS showed the best results in conservative canal preparations. Nowadays, contemporary rotary instruments allow fast and minimally invasive shaping of the endodontic space. In this scenario irrigants’ activation may be regarded as a mandatory step to a favourable clinical outcome.

【 授权许可】

Unknown