Influence of the type of instrument used in passive ultrasonic irrigation on the smear layer removal capacity

INTRODUCTION: Irrigation is the vital part of root canal debridement. Usually post biomechanical preparation, the canal walls are covered by smear layer. It is important to remove this layer before obturation for better bond between the filling and walls. Conventional needle irrigation doesn’t give us adequate cleaning, therefore, new irrigation techniques are being tried to facilitate better smear layer removal. AIM: The aim was to evaluate and compare the smear layer removal by PATS, EndoActivator device, Passive ultrasonic irrigation and side vent needle irrigation from canal walls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 60 extracted mandibular premolars were instrumented up to 35/.04 with Heroshaper files. Samples were divided into 4 groups randomly before final irrigation as follows: Group I (n=15): Irrigation with side vent needles (Nexus ltd.,India), Group II (n=15): Irrigation with EndoActivator (Advanced Endodontics, Santa Barbara, CA ) Group III (n=15): Irrigation with PATS ( InnovationsEndo,India), Group IV (n=15): Irrigation with ultrasonic tips (Mani inc.). Teeth were split and one-half of each tooth was chosen for SEM examination. The images were taken at apical third and scoring was done according to criteria by Torabinejad et al in 2003. Data obtained were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by Mann–Whitney U-test for individual comparison. RESULTS: All irrigating systems remove smear layer but PUI has better cleaning ability as compared to other groups. CONCLUSION: Passive ultrasonic irrigation shows better smear layer removal as compared to other techniques

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of passive ultrasonic irrigation time in the smear layer removal

Biodental Engineering II ◽

10.1201/b15986-12 ◽

2013 ◽

pp. 49-52

Keyword(s):

Smear Layer ◽

Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation ◽

Layer Removal ◽

Irrigation Time ◽

Ultrasonic Irrigation

Download Full-text

Smear Layer Removal Using Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation and Different Concentrations of Sodium Hypochlorite

Journal of Endodontics ◽

10.1016/j.joen.2020.07.020 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 46 (11) ◽

pp. 1738-1744

Author(s):

Nayra Bittencourt Orlowski ◽

Tamer Ferreira Schimdt ◽

Cleonice da Silveira Teixeira ◽

Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia ◽

Julia Menezes Savaris ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Sodium Hypochlorite ◽

Smear Layer ◽

Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation ◽

Layer Removal ◽

Ultrasonic Irrigation

Download Full-text

Comparison of smear layer removal ability of different agitation system in the apical third of the root canal using SEM: an in vitro study

International Journal of Dentistry Research ◽

10.31254/dentistry.2020.5106 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

pp. 24-28

Author(s):

Zaighum Raza ◽

◽

Shiraz Pasha ◽

Kusum Valli ◽

VijayaLakshmi Yartha ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Root Canal ◽

In Vitro Study ◽

Antimicrobial Effect ◽

Smear Layer ◽

Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation ◽

Layer Removal ◽

Group I ◽

Working Length ◽

Ultrasonic Irrigation

Introduction: Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl) remains gold standard as a result of its antimicrobial effect and tissue dissolution properties, but it has no effect on inorganic portion of smear layer. Thus the combination of NaOCl and EDTA has been proven to have the perfect ability in removal of both organic and inorganic debris. These irrigants when used with conventional syringe irrigation were unable to penetrate the apical portion of the root canal, so new activation devices have come in the market which claims to be effective in delivering the irrigant to the working length. Objective/Aim: This study evaluated and compared the efficacy of recently introduced irrigation activation devices EndoActivator, Passive ultrasonic irrigation and Laser on removal of smear layer from the apical third of instrumented root canal using Scanning electron microscope. Methods: Forty three single rooted teeth were prepared with the help of protaper files and divided into four groups. Group I: EDTA only, Group II: Endoactivator, Group III: Laser, Group IV: Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI). Three specimens were not treated with any smear layer removal protocol and were immediately sectioned and sent for SEM examination. The remaining 40 samples from 4 groups after treatment with different activation system were also sectioned and sent for SEM examination. The data obtained were statistically analysed using Friedman’s test. Results: All the four groups removed smear layer and the laser showed best smear layer removing capability compared to other groups but was significant only with respect to control and group I (EDTA group without any activation) (p<0.05). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, all the activation systems were able to remove the smear layer from the apical third of the root canal with laser showing the best result followed by Endoactivator and then PUI.

Download Full-text