Assessment of smear layer removing efficacy of different irrigation activation devices in mandibular premolar teeth using a scanning electron microscope: An in vitro comparative study

Q3 Dentistry
Saurabh Sudesh Chodankar, P Ashwini, N Meena, Vishwas Gowda, Nikitha D’souza
{"title":"Assessment of smear layer removing efficacy of different irrigation activation devices in mandibular premolar teeth using a scanning electron microscope: An in vitro comparative study","authors":"Saurabh Sudesh Chodankar, P Ashwini, N Meena, Vishwas Gowda, Nikitha D’souza","doi":"10.4103/endo.endo_98_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the effectiveness of three different irrigation activation systems in removing smear layer in single-rooted mandibular premolars using scanning electron microscope (SEM). Materials and Methods: Fifty-six extracted single-rooted mandibular premolars were included in the study (n = 56). The teeth were decoronated, working length was determined, and canals were prepared till #30/0.09, with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite and saline as working solution. Final irrigation was performed with 5 mL of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid solution using three different activation systems. Teeth were randomly divided into four groups: Group A (control group) – conventional syringe irrigation with 30-G single side-vented needle; Group B (passive ultrasonic irrigation [PUI] method) – PUI with #20 Irrisafe ultrasonic files activated for 1 min; Group C (sonic activation) – EndoActivator system using the yellow tip (#20/0.04) activated for 1 min; and Group D – Tornado Disinfection Kit using GF Brush for 20–30 s as per the manufacturer’s instructions. The samples were sectioned and subjected to SEM at × 2500 magnification. The efficacy of smear layer removal was assessed and scored by two operators. The collected data were analyzed statistically using Chi-square test ( P < 0.05). Results: There was no statistically significant difference observed between the three different activation groups and the control group ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: PUI performed better than all the study groups in removing smear layer from coronal, middle, and apical third of root canals. EndoActivator and Tornado Disinfection Kit performed similar in coronal and middle third, but the efficacy in apical third was inferior to the PUI group.","PeriodicalId":11607,"journal":{"name":"Endodontology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endodontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/endo.endo_98_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the effectiveness of three different irrigation activation systems in removing smear layer in single-rooted mandibular premolars using scanning electron microscope (SEM). Materials and Methods: Fifty-six extracted single-rooted mandibular premolars were included in the study (n = 56). The teeth were decoronated, working length was determined, and canals were prepared till #30/0.09, with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite and saline as working solution. Final irrigation was performed with 5 mL of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid solution using three different activation systems. Teeth were randomly divided into four groups: Group A (control group) – conventional syringe irrigation with 30-G single side-vented needle; Group B (passive ultrasonic irrigation [PUI] method) – PUI with #20 Irrisafe ultrasonic files activated for 1 min; Group C (sonic activation) – EndoActivator system using the yellow tip (#20/0.04) activated for 1 min; and Group D – Tornado Disinfection Kit using GF Brush for 20–30 s as per the manufacturer’s instructions. The samples were sectioned and subjected to SEM at × 2500 magnification. The efficacy of smear layer removal was assessed and scored by two operators. The collected data were analyzed statistically using Chi-square test ( P < 0.05). Results: There was no statistically significant difference observed between the three different activation groups and the control group ( P < 0.05). Conclusion: PUI performed better than all the study groups in removing smear layer from coronal, middle, and apical third of root canals. EndoActivator and Tornado Disinfection Kit performed similar in coronal and middle third, but the efficacy in apical third was inferior to the PUI group.
扫描电镜下不同灌洗激活装置去除下颌前磨牙涂抹层效果的体外比较研究
摘要目的:通过扫描电镜观察和比较三种不同灌洗激活系统去除单根下颌前磨牙涂抹层的效果。材料与方法:选取56颗拔除的单根下颌前磨牙(n = 56)。以5.25%次氯酸钠和生理盐水为工作溶液,进行牙体装饰,确定工作长度,预备根管至#30/0.09。最后用5 mL 17%乙二胺四乙酸溶液进行冲洗,使用三种不同的活化系统。牙齿随机分为4组:A组(对照组)-常规注射器灌洗30 g单边通气针;B组(被动超声灌洗[PUI]法)- PUI使用#20 Irrisafe超声文件激活1分钟;C组(声波激活)- EndoActivator系统使用黄色尖端(#20/0.04)激活1分钟;D组-龙卷风消毒试剂盒,根据制造商的说明,使用GF刷消毒20-30秒。对样品进行切片,并在× 2500倍率下进行扫描电镜扫描。由两名操作人员对涂抹层去除的效果进行评估和评分。收集的资料采用卡方检验(P <0.05)。结果:三个不同激活组与对照组比较,差异无统计学意义(P <0.05)。结论:PUI组在冠状、中、根尖三分之一根管涂抹层去除效果优于各研究组。EndoActivator和Tornado消毒试剂盒在冠状和中三分之一的疗效相似,但在根尖三分之一的疗效不如PUI组。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Endodontology
Endodontology Medicine-Anatomy
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
28 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信