The Effectiveness of Triton Used With XP-3D Adaptive Files and Active Irrigation on Smear Layer Removal During Root Canal Preparation: A Qualitative Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Study.
Charissa Bandoo, Samiyah Suliman, Emma Trestrail, Shivaughn M Marchan
{"title":"The Effectiveness of Triton Used With XP-3D Adaptive Files and Active Irrigation on Smear Layer Removal During Root Canal Preparation: A Qualitative Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Study.","authors":"Charissa Bandoo, Samiyah Suliman, Emma Trestrail, Shivaughn M Marchan","doi":"10.7759/cureus.73057","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Standard irrigating protocols during root canal treatment call for the use of sodium hypochlorite during chemo-mechanical preparation, followed by final irrigation with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). This study determined the effectiveness of a new irrigant, Triton (Brasseler, USA), on smear layer removal during root canal treatment compared to that of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite and CanalPro EDTA 17% (Coltene).</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Twenty-one extracted anterior teeth were prepared for root canal treatment. The teeth were divided into three groups: five teeth were used as control with saline as the irrigant, eight teeth with sodium hypochlorite and 17% EDTA as irrigants, and eight teeth with Triton as the irrigant. Root canal preparation was done using the XP-3D shaper and finisher files (Brasseler, USA) for all teeth with respective irrigants. A single operator performed all root canal treatment procedures. The teeth were prepared for scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and analysis was performed by a second investigator. The smear layer removal was qualitatively assessed to determine the effectiveness of irrigants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Smear layer removal was most effective for teeth irrigated with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite, followed by 17% EDTA (Group B). Teeth irrigated with Triton (Group A) showed a similar appearance to the hypochlorite/EDTA group but with isolated instances of inter-tubular debris.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Sodium hypochlorite use followed by a final rinse with EDTA remains the gold standard for the removal of the smear layer created during canal instrumentation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93960,"journal":{"name":"Cureus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11537186/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cureus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.73057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Standard irrigating protocols during root canal treatment call for the use of sodium hypochlorite during chemo-mechanical preparation, followed by final irrigation with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). This study determined the effectiveness of a new irrigant, Triton (Brasseler, USA), on smear layer removal during root canal treatment compared to that of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite and CanalPro EDTA 17% (Coltene).
Methodology: Twenty-one extracted anterior teeth were prepared for root canal treatment. The teeth were divided into three groups: five teeth were used as control with saline as the irrigant, eight teeth with sodium hypochlorite and 17% EDTA as irrigants, and eight teeth with Triton as the irrigant. Root canal preparation was done using the XP-3D shaper and finisher files (Brasseler, USA) for all teeth with respective irrigants. A single operator performed all root canal treatment procedures. The teeth were prepared for scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and analysis was performed by a second investigator. The smear layer removal was qualitatively assessed to determine the effectiveness of irrigants.
Results: Smear layer removal was most effective for teeth irrigated with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite, followed by 17% EDTA (Group B). Teeth irrigated with Triton (Group A) showed a similar appearance to the hypochlorite/EDTA group but with isolated instances of inter-tubular debris.
Conclusion: Sodium hypochlorite use followed by a final rinse with EDTA remains the gold standard for the removal of the smear layer created during canal instrumentation.