Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Canal cleanliness using different irrigation activation systems: a SEM evaluation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of different final irrigation activation methods in removing debris and smear layer in the apical, middle, and coronal portion of straight root canals.

Material and methods

Straight root canals of 58 freshly extracted mandibular premolars were used. Root canals were prepared to size 40.06. Irrigation was performed using 3% sodium hypochlorite. Samples were divided into four equal groups (n = 12) according to the irrigation activation techniques: (A) manual irrigation (MI), (B) EndoActivator (EA) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), (C) sonic activation EDDY (EDDY; VDW, Munich, Germany), and (D) passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI). Ten teeth served as negative controls. Roots were split longitudinally, and the canal walls were subjected to scanning electron microscopy. The presence of debris and smear layer at coronal, middle, and apical levels were evaluated using a 5-point scoring system and statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests.

Results

Canal cleanliness decreased from coronal to apical (P = 0.035). Significantly more debris was removed with EA, EDDY, and PUI compared to MI (P < 0.001; total values), but no differences were observed in the different portions of the root canals (P > 0.05). Smear layer removal with PUI, EA, and EDDY was not significantly different (P > 0.05), but only EDDY and PUI were superior to MI (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

All activation methods created nearly debris-free canal walls and were superior compared to manual irrigation (P < 0.001). EDDY and PUI also showed significantly better smear layer scores compared to manual irrigation.

Clinical relevance

The sonic activation system EDDY performed equally as well as PUI, and both methods were significantly superior compared with manual irrigation in straight root canals with regard to debris and smear layer removal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hülsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PMH (2005) Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Top 10:30–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McComb D, Smith DC (1975) A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod 1:238–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gulabivala K, Patel B, Evans G, Ng YL (2005) Effects of mechanical and chemical procedures on root canal surfaces. Endod Top 10:103–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boutsioukis C, Lambrianidis T, Kastrinakis E (2009) Irrigant flow within a prepared root canal using various flow rates: a computational fluid dynamics study. Int Endod J 42:144–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tay FR, Gu LS, Schoeffel GJ, Wimmer C, Susin L, Zhang K, Arun SN, Kim J, Looney SW, Pashley DH (2010) Effect of vapor lock on root canal debridement by using a side-vented needle for positive-pressure irrigant delivery. J Endod 36:745–750

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J, Choi KK, Pashley DH, Tay FR (2009) Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod 35:791–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Plotino G, Cortese T, Grande NM, Leonardi DP, Di Giorgio G, Testarelli L, Gambarini G (2016) New technologies to improve root canal disinfection. Braz Dent J 27:3–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Violich DR, Chandler NP (2010) The smear layer in endodontics—a review. Int Endod J 43:2–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Al-Ali M, Sathorn C, Parashos P (2012) Root canal debridement efficacy of different final irrigation protocols. Int Endod J 45:898–906

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E (2012) Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 45:449–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schmidt TF, Teixeira CS, Felippe MCS, Felippe WT, Pashley DH, Bortoluzzi EA (2015) Effect of ultrasonic activation or irrigants on smear layer removal. J Endod 41:1359–1363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Torabinejad M, Handysides R, Khademi AA, Bakland LK (2002) Clinical implications of the smear layer in endodontics: a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 94:658–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Wang Z, Gao Y (2014) Irrigation in endodontics. Brit Dent J 216:299–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bertacci A, Baroni C, Breschi L, Venturi M, Prati C (2007) The influence of smear layer in lateral channels filling. Clin Oral Investig 11:353–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Zehnder M (2006) Root canal irrigants. J Endod 32:389–398

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Serafino C, Gallina G, Cumbo E, Ferrari M (2004) Surface debris of canal walls after post space preparation in endodontically treated teeth: a scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 97:381–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van der Sluis LW, Versluis M, Wu MK, Wesselink PR (2007) Passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: a review of the literature. Int Endod J 40:415–426

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jensen SA, Walker TL, Hutter JW, Nicoll BK (1999) Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of passive sonic activation and passive ultrasonic activation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod 25:735–738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hülsmann M, Rümmelin C, Schäfers F (1997) Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative SEM investigation. J Endod 23:301–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Paqué F, Ganahl D, Peters OA (2009) Effects of root canal preparation on apical geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. J Endod 35:1056–1059

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Paqué F, Al-Jadaa A, Kfir A (2012) Hard-tissue debris accumulation created by conventional rotary versus self-adjusting file instrumentation in mesial root canal systems of mandibular molars. Int Endod J 45:413–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Haikel Y, Allemann C (1988) Effectiveness of four methods for preparing root canals: a scanning electron microscopic evaluation. J Endod 14:340–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Carr GB, Schwartz RS, Schaudinn C, Gorur A, Costerton JW (2009) Ultrastructural examination of failed molar retreatment with secondary apical periodontitis: an examination of endodontic biofilms in an endodontic retreatment failure. J Endod 35:1303–1309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. American Association of Endodontists (2003) Glossary of endodontic terms. AAE, Chicago, IL, USA

  25. Grandini S, Balleri P, Ferrari M (2002) Evaluation of Glyde File Prep in combination with sodium hypochlorite as a root canal irrigant. J Endod 28:300–303

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. West JD, Roane JB, Goerig AC (1994) Cleaning and shaping the root canal system. In: Cohen S, Burns RC (eds) Pathways of the pulps, 6th edn. Mosby Year Book, St. Louis, pp 179–218

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shahravan A, Haghdoost AA, Adl A, Rahimi H, Shadifar F (2007) Effect of smear layer on sealing ability of canal obturation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 33:96–105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T (2006) Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 39:203–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lottanti S, Gautschi H, Sener B, Zehnder M (2009) Effects of ethylenediaminetetraacetic, etidronic and peracetic acid irrigation on human root dentine and the smear layer. Int Endod J 42:335–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lee SJ, Wu MK, Wesselink PR (2004) The effectiveness of syringe irrigation and ultrasonics to remove debris from simulated irregularities within prepared root canal walls. Int Endod J 37:672–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. van der Sluis LWM, Wu MK, Wesselink PR (2005) The efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation to remove artificially placed dentine debris from human root canals prepared using instruments of varying taper. Int Endod J 38:764–768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. de Gregorio C, Arias A, Navarette N, Del Rio V, Oltra E, Cohenca N (2013) Effect of apical size and taper on the volume of irrigant delivered at working length with apical pressure at different root curvatures. J Endod 39:119–124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Li D, Jiang S, Yin X, Chang JW, Ke J, Zhang C (2015) Efficacy of needle, ultrasonic, and Endoactivator irrigation and photon-induced photoacoustic streaming in removing calcium hydroxide from the main canal and isthmus: an in vitro micro-computed tomography and scanning electron microscopy study. Photomed Laser Surg 33:330–337

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fornari VJ, Silva-Sousa YT, Vanni JR, Pécora JD, Versiani MA, Sousa-Neto MD (2010) Histological evaluation of the effectiveness of increased apical enlargement for cleaning the apical third of curved canals. Int Endod J 43:988–994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Klyn SL, Kirkpatrick TC, Rutledge RE (2010) In vitro comparisons of debris removal of the EndoActivator system, the F file, ultrasonic irrigation, and NaOCl irrigation alone after hand-rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars. J Endod 36:1367–1371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Operative Dentistry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

    K. Urban & D. Donnermeyer

  2. Central Interdisciplinary Ambulance in the School of Dentistry, University of Münster, Waldeyerstr. 30, 48149, Münster, Germany

    Edgar Schäfer & S. Bürklein

Authors
  1. K. Urban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Donnermeyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edgar Schäfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Bürklein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edgar Schäfer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

None.

Ethical approval

This study does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Not required.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Urban, K., Donnermeyer, D., Schäfer, E. et al. Canal cleanliness using different irrigation activation systems: a SEM evaluation. Clin Oral Invest 21, 2681–2687 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2070-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2070-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation