Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of smear layer and debris removal by stepwise intraoperative activation (SIA) of sodium hypochlorite

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

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy of a stepwise intraoperative activation (SIA) of irrigants during and after the instrumentation compared with that of a conventional activation (CA) performed only after the instrumentation to remove smear layer and debris using different activation devices.

Materials and methods

A total of 70 single-rooted teeth were divided into a control group (no activation, n = 10) and two different experimental groups according to the irrigant activation protocol used: group 1 (CA), in which sodium hypochlorite was activated only after the use of the last mechanical file, and group 2 (SIA), in which activation was performed during and after the instrumentation. The two groups were divided into 3 subgroups according to the activation device used (n = 10): passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI, subgroup a), EndoActivator (EA, subgroup b), and EDDY (subgroup c). The roots were split longitudinally and observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to evaluate the presence of debris and smear layer, and the results were statistically analyzed.

Results

All activation protocols and devices were more effective than control group in removing smear layer and debris from all root canal thirds (P < 0.05), except for CA-EA (group 1b) in the apical third. In the apical third, SIA was found to be more effective than CA (P < 0.05) to remove smear layer and residual debris when PUI was used, to remove the smear layer when EA was used (P < 0.05), and to remove residual debris when EDDY was used (P < 0.05). PUI and EDDY removed statistically more smear layer and debris than EA in the apical third (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The SIA technique improved the smear layer and debris removal from the apical third and debris removal from the coronal third, and PUI and EDDY were more effective than EA in the apical third.

Clinical relevance

The stepwise intraoperative activation (SIA) technique may increase smear layer and debris 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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kakehashi S, Stanley HR, Fitzgerald RJ (1965) The effects of surgical exposures of dental pulps in germ-free and conventional laboratory rats. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 20:340–349

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Munoz HR, Camacho-Cuadra K (2012) In vivo efficacy of three different endodontic irrigation systems for irrigant delivery to working length of mesial canals of mandibular molars. J Endod 38:445–448

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L, Armellin E, Conte G, Cianconi L (2013) Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, EndoVac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): field emission scanning electron microscopic evaluation in an in vitro study. J Endod 39:1456–1460

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bahcall J, Olsen FK (2007) Clinical introduction of a plastic rotary endodontic finishing file. Endod Prac 10:17

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Plotino G, Pameijer CH, Grande NM, Somma F (2007) Ultrasonics in endodontics: a review of the literature. J Endod 33:81–95

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Van der Sluis LWM, 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Urban K, Donnermeyer D, Schäfer E, Bürklein S (2017) Canal cleanliness using different irrigation activation systems: a SEM evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 21:2681–2687

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Conde AJ, Estevez R, Loroño G, Valencia de Pablo Ó, Rossi-Fedele G, Cisneros R (2017) Effect of sonic and ultrasonic activation on organic tissue dissolution from simulated grooves in root canals using sodium hypochlorite and EDTA. Int Endod J 50:976–982

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Donnermeyer D, Wyrsch H, Bürklein S, Schäfer E (2019) Removal of calcium hydroxide from artificial grooves in straight root canals: sonic activation using EDDY versus passive ultrasonic irrigation and XP-endo Finisher. J Endod 45:322–326

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Plotino G, Grande NM, Mercade M, Cortese T, Staffoli S, Gambarini G, Testarelli L (2019) Efficacy of sonic and ultrasonic irrigation devices in the removal of debris from canal irregularities in artificial root canals. J Appl Oral Sci 27:e20180045

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Lea SC, Felver B, Landini G, Walmsley AD (2009) Ultrasonic scaler oscillations and tooth-surface defects. J Dent Res 88:229–234

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Paragliola R, Franco V, Fabiani C, Mazzoni A, Nato F, Tay FR (2010) Final rinse optimization: influence of different agitation protocols. J Endod 36:282–285

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jiang LM, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, Van der Sluis LW (2010) Evaluation of a sonic device designed to activate irrigant in the root canal. J Endod 36:143–146

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Haupt F, Meinel M, Gunawardana A, Hülsmann M (2019) Effectiveness of different activated irrigation techniques on debris and smear layer removal from curved root canals: a SEM evaluation. Aust Endod J 46:40–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Paqué F, Boessler C, Zehnder M (2011) Accumulated hard tissue debris levels in mesial roots of mandibular molars after sequential irrigation steps. Int Endod J 44:148–153

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rödig T, Koberg C, Baxter S, Konietschke F, Wiegand A, Rizk M (2019) Micro-CT evaluation of sonically and ultrasonically activated irrigation on the removal of hard-tissue debris from isthmus-containing mesial root canal systems of mandibular molars. Int Endod J 52:1173–1181

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Silva EJNL, Carvalho CR, Belladonna FG, Prado MC, Lopes RT, De-Deus G, Moreira EJL (2019) Micro-CT evaluation of different final irrigation protocols on the removal of hard-tissue debris from isthmus-containing mesial root of mandibular molars. Clin Oral Investig 23:681–687

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Verstraeten J, Jacquet W, De Moor RJG, Meire MA (2017) Hard tissue debris removal from the mesial root canal system of mandibular molars with ultrasonically and laser-activated irrigation: a micro-computed tomography study. Lasers Med Sci 32:1965–1970

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. De-Deus G, Belladonna FG, de Siqueira ZA, Perez R, Carvalho MS, Souza EM, Lopes RT, Silva EJNL (2019) Micro-CT comparison of XP-endo Finisher and passive ultrasonic irrigation as final irrigation protocols on the removal of accumulated hard-tissue debris from oval shaped-canals. Clin Oral Investig 23:3087–3093

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Baumgartner JC, Mader CL (1987) A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of four root canal irrigation regimens. J Endod 13:147–157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Elnaghy AM, Mandorah A, Elsaka SE (2017) Effectiveness of XP-endo Finisher, EndoActivator, and file agitation on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a comparative study. Odontology 105:178–183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wu MK, Wesselink PR (1995) Efficacy of three techniques in cleaning the apical portion of curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 79:492–496

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gutmann JL, Saunders WP, Nguyen L, Guo IY, Saunders EM (1994) Ultrasonic root-end preparation Part 1. SEM analysis. Int Endod J 27:318–324

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Krishan R, Paqué F, Ossareh A, Kishen A, Dao T, Friedman S (2014) Impacts of conservative endodontic cavity on root canal instrumentation efficacy and resistance to fracture assessed in incisors, premolars, and molars. J Endod 40:1160–1166

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Plotino G, Özyürek T, Grande NM, Gündoğar M (2019) Influence of size and taper of basic root canal preparation on root canal cleanliness: a scanning electron microscopy study. Int Endod J 52:343–351

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Virdee SS, Seymour DW, Farnell D, Bhamra G, Bhakta S (2018) Efficacy of irrigant activation techniques in removing intracanal smear layer and debris from mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J 51:605–621

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Van der Sluis L, Wu MK, Wesselink P (2009) Comparison of 2 flushing methods used during passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal. Quintessence Int 40:875–879

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fornari VJ, Silva-Sousa YTC, 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Plotino G, Grande NM, Tocci L, Testarelli L, Gambarini G (2014) Influence of different apical preparations on root canal cleanliness in human molars: a SEM study. J Oral Maxillofac Res 5:e4

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Rodrigues RCV, Zandi H, Kristoffersen AK (2017) Influence of the apical preparation size and the irrigant type on bacterial reduction in root canal–treated teeth with apical periodontitis. J Endod 43:1058–1063

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Coldero LG, McHugh S, MacKenzie D, Saunders WP (2002) Reduction in intracanal bacteria during root canal preparation with and without apical enlargement. Int Endod J 35:437–446

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Júnior ASA, Cavenago BC, Ordinola-Zapata R, De-Deus G, Bramante CM, Duarte MAH (2014) The effect of larger apical preparations in the danger zone of lower molars prepared using the Mtwo and Reciproc systems. J Endod 40:1855–1859

    Google Scholar 

  40. Yang G, Wu H, Zheng Y, Zhang H, Li H, Zhou X (2008) Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of debris and smear layer remaining following use of ProTaper and Hero Shaper instruments in combination with NaOCl and EDTA irrigation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 106:e63–e71

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. De-Deus G, Reis C, Paciornik S (2011) Critical appraisal of published smear layer-removal studies: methodological issues. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 112:531–543

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Rödig T, Döllmann S, Konietschke F, Drebenstedt S, Hülsmann M (2010) Effectiveness of different irrigant agitation techniques on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Endod 36:1983–1987

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Neuhaus KW, Liebi M, Stauffacher S, Eick S, Lussi A (2016) Antibacterial efficacy of a new sonic irrigation device for root canal disinfection. J Endod 42:179–1803

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Private Practice, Rome, Italy

    G. Plotino

  2. Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli – IRCCS, Rome, Italy

    M. Colangeli, R. Castagnola, N. M. Grande & L. Marigo

  3. School of Dentistry, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy

    M. Colangeli, R. Castagnola, N. M. Grande & L. Marigo

  4. Department of Endodontics, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey

    T. Özyürek

  5. Department of Endodontics, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    G. DeDeus

  6. Department of Physics, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy

    C. Panzetta

Authors
  1. G. Plotino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Colangeli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Özyürek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. DeDeus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. C. Panzetta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. R. Castagnola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. N. M. Grande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. L. Marigo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Plotino, G., Colangeli, M., Özyürek, T. et al. Evaluation of smear layer and debris removal by stepwise intraoperative activation (SIA) of sodium hypochlorite. Clin Oral Invest 25, 237–245 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03358-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03358-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation