Removal of the smear layer by passive and continuous ultrasonic irrigation: a scanning electron microscopy study

Q4 Dentistry
Ricardo Machado, Alexandre Rother, Daniel Comparin, Ajinkya M. Pawar, Felipe de Souza Matos, Thaís Christina Cunha, L. Alberton, L. Paranhos
{"title":"Removal of the smear layer by passive and continuous ultrasonic irrigation: a scanning electron microscopy study","authors":"Ricardo Machado, Alexandre Rother, Daniel Comparin, Ajinkya M. Pawar, Felipe de Souza Matos, Thaís Christina Cunha, L. Alberton, L. Paranhos","doi":"10.17126/joralres.2021.070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Due to the anatomical complexity of the root canal system, irrigation plays an essential role in endodontics. This in vitro study was sought to compare the removal of the smear layer (RSL) promoted by conventional irrigation (CI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) and continuous ultrasonic irrigation (CUI) with 17% EDTA, by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Material and Methods: Forty single-rooted human mandibular canines were instrumented and randomly assigned to four groups (n=10), according to the irrigation protocol aiming to the RSL: CG (control group) —conventional irrigation with distilled water; CI— conventional irrigation with 17% EDTA; PUI —passive ultrasonic irrigation with 17% EDTA; CUI— continuous ultrasonic irrigation with 17% EDTA. Hemisections from each sample were obtained, and images of each root canal third (cervical, middle and apical) were captured at 1000 X magnification by SEM. Three previously calibrated and blinded evaluators classified the RSL, according to the criteria proposed by Torabinejad et al.: small or no smear layer (all dentinal tubules were clean and open); 2 = moderate smear layer (no smear layer on the surface of root canal, but dentinal tubules contained debris); 3 = dense smear layer (covering practically all dentinal tubules entrances). Statistical analysis was performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni tests (p<0.05). Results: Overall, CUI and cervical thirds showed better RSL rates, compared with the other methods and thirds, respectively (p<0.05). More specifically, the cervical thirds showed better results in the CG, CI and PUI groups (p<0.05), whereas the cervical and middle thirds were not significantly different in the CUI group. Conclusion: CUI was the most effective method for the RSL.","PeriodicalId":16625,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oral Research","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oral Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2021.070","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Due to the anatomical complexity of the root canal system, irrigation plays an essential role in endodontics. This in vitro study was sought to compare the removal of the smear layer (RSL) promoted by conventional irrigation (CI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) and continuous ultrasonic irrigation (CUI) with 17% EDTA, by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Material and Methods: Forty single-rooted human mandibular canines were instrumented and randomly assigned to four groups (n=10), according to the irrigation protocol aiming to the RSL: CG (control group) —conventional irrigation with distilled water; CI— conventional irrigation with 17% EDTA; PUI —passive ultrasonic irrigation with 17% EDTA; CUI— continuous ultrasonic irrigation with 17% EDTA. Hemisections from each sample were obtained, and images of each root canal third (cervical, middle and apical) were captured at 1000 X magnification by SEM. Three previously calibrated and blinded evaluators classified the RSL, according to the criteria proposed by Torabinejad et al.: small or no smear layer (all dentinal tubules were clean and open); 2 = moderate smear layer (no smear layer on the surface of root canal, but dentinal tubules contained debris); 3 = dense smear layer (covering practically all dentinal tubules entrances). Statistical analysis was performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni tests (p<0.05). Results: Overall, CUI and cervical thirds showed better RSL rates, compared with the other methods and thirds, respectively (p<0.05). More specifically, the cervical thirds showed better results in the CG, CI and PUI groups (p<0.05), whereas the cervical and middle thirds were not significantly different in the CUI group. Conclusion: CUI was the most effective method for the RSL.
通过被动和连续超声冲洗去除涂抹层:扫描电镜研究
背景:由于根管系统的解剖复杂性,灌洗在牙髓学中起着至关重要的作用。本体外研究通过扫描电镜(SEM)比较17% EDTA常规灌洗(CI)、被动超声灌洗(PUI)和连续超声灌洗(CUI)对涂片层(RSL)去除效果的影响。材料与方法:将40只单根人下颌犬齿按RSL灌洗方案随机分为4组(n=10): CG(对照组)-常规蒸馏水灌洗;CI - 17% EDTA常规灌溉;PUI - 17% EDTA被动超声灌洗;CUI - 17% EDTA连续超声灌洗。获得每个样本的半切面,并在1000倍放大的扫描电镜下捕获每个根管三分之一(颈、中、根尖)的图像。根据Torabinejad等人提出的标准,三名先前校准的盲法评估者对RSL进行分类:小或无涂片层(所有牙本质小管清洁且开放);2 =中等涂抹层(根管表面无涂抹层,但牙本质小管内含有杂物);3 =致密的涂抹层(几乎覆盖所有牙本质小管入口)。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验和Bonferroni检验进行统计学分析(p<0.05)。结果:总体而言,CUI和颈椎三分之一的RSL发生率分别高于其他方法和三分之一(p<0.05)。更具体地说,CG组、CI组和PUI组的宫颈三分之一表现更好(p<0.05),而CUI组的宫颈三分之一和中三分之一无显著差异。结论:CUI是治疗RSL最有效的方法。
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
Journal of Oral Research
Journal of Oral Research Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Oral Research which is published every two month, is devoted to the dissemination of knowledge in oral and craniofacial sciences, including: oral surgery and medicine and rehabilitation, craniofacial surgery, dentistry, orofacial pain and motor disorders, head and neck surgery, speech and swallowing disorders, and other related disciplines. Journal of Oral Research publishes original research articles and brief communications, systematic reviews, study protocols, research hypotheses, reports of cases, comments and perspectives. Indexed by Scopus, DOAJ, LILACS, Latindex, IMBIOMED, DIALNET,REDIB and Google Scholar. Journal of Oral Research is a member of COPE.
×
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