Lasers in Medical Science

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 335–342 | Cite as

The efficacy of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming and sonic-activated irrigation combined with QMiX solution or sodium hypochlorite against intracanal E. faecalis biofilm

  • M. Balić
  • R. Lucić
  • K. Mehadžić
  • I. BagoEmail author
  • I. Anić
  • S. Jakovljević
  • V. Plečko
Original Article


The aim of the study was to assess the antibacterial efficacy of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming (PIPS) using an Er:YAG laser and sonic-activated irrigation combined with QMiX irrigant or sodium hypochlorite against Enterococcus faecalis intracanal biofilm. Root canals of 91 human extracted single-canal teeth were instrumented, sterilized, contaminated with E. faecalis and incubated for 15 days. The infected teeth were then randomly distributed into six experimental groups: G1: PIPS/Er:YAG laser (wavelength 2940 nm, pulse energy 20 mJ, 15 Hz, pulse duration 50 μs, energy density 2.06 J/cm2, 3 × 20 s) with the QMiX irrigant; G2: PIPS/Er:YAG laser-activated 2.5 % NaOCl; G3 sonic-activated irrigation (EndoActivator system) for 60 s with the QMiX irrigant; G4 sonic-activated irrigation for 60 s with 2.5 % NaOCl; G5 30-gauge needle irrigation with the QMiX irrigant; G6 30-gauge needle irrigation with 2.5 % NaOCl. The positive control group was rinsed with sterile saline solution. The root canals were sampled by flushing with saline solution at baseline and after the treatments, serially diluted and cultured. The number of bacteria in each canal was determined by plate count. The presence and the absence of E. faecalis in root canals were demonstrated by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and the pattern of the bacteria colonization was visualized by scanning electron microscopy. There was significant reduction in the bacterial population for all groups (p < 0.001). The best antibacterial efficacy was recorded after sonic-activated irrigation with both NaOCl (99.999 %) and QMiX (99.999 %) and after PIPS with QMiX (99.999 %), which were more effective than conventional irrigation with NaOCl (99.998 %) and the PIPS with the NaOCl (99.966 %). Also, the PIPS with QMiX solution provided the highest number of sterile samples (five). There was no difference in the bacteria reduction between the active irrigation techniques, regardless of the irrigant used. Although the laser activation did not improve the antimicrobial action of the NaOCl nor QMiX, the fact that it generated the greatest number of sterile samples warrants further investigation.


Enterococcus faecalis Laser-activated irrigation PIPS Sonic irrigation 


  1. 1.
    Byström A, Sundqvist G (1985) The antibacterial action of sodium hypochlorite and EDTA in 60 cases of endodontic therapy. Int Endod J 18(1):35–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rossi A, Silva LAB, Leonardo MR, Rocha LB, Rossi MA (2005) Effect of rotary or manual instrumentation, with or without a calcium hydroxide 1% chlorhexidine intracanal dressing, on the healing of experimentally induced chronic periapical lesions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 99(5):628–636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rosenfeld EF, James GA, Burch BS (1978) Vital pulp tissue response to sodium hypochlorite. J Endod 4(5):140–146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zehnder M, Kosicki D, Luder H, Sener B, Waltimo T (2002) Tissue-dissolving capacity and antibacterial effect of buffered and unbuffered hypochlorite solutions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 94(6):756–762CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang Z, Shen Y, Haapasalo M (2012) Effectiveness of endodontic disinfecting solutions against young and old Enterococcus faecalis biofilms in dentin canals. J Endod 38(10):1376–1379. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.06.035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    del Carpio-Perochena AE, Bramante CM, Duarte MA et al (2011) Biofilm dissolution and cleaning ability of different irrigant solutions on intraorally infected dentin. J Endod 37(8):1134–1138. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.04.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nair PNR, Henry S, Cano V, Vera J (2005) Microbial status of apical root canal system of human mandibular first molar with primary apical periodontitis after “one-visit” endodontic treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 99(2):231–252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vera J, Siqueira JF Jr, Ricucci D et al (2012) One versus two-visit endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis: a histobacteriologic study. J Endod 38(8):1040–1052. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.04.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paque F, Laib A, Gautschi H et al (2009) Hard-tissue debris accumulation analysis by high-resolution computed tomography scans. J Endod 35(7):1044–1047. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.04.026 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sabins RA, Johnson JD, Hellstein JW (2003) A comparison of the cleaning ability of short-term sonic and ultrasonic passive irrigation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod 29(10):674–678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shen Y, Stojicic S, Qian W, Olsen I, Haapasalo M (2010) The synergistic antimicrobial effect by mechanical agitation and two chlorhexidine preparations on biofilm bacteria. J Endod 36(1):100–104. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.09.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bago I, Plečko V, Gabrić Pandurić D, Schauperl Z, Baraba A, Anić I (2013) Antimicrobial efficacy of high-power diode laser, photo-activated disinfection, conventional and sonic activated irrigation during root canal treatment. Int Endod J 46(4):339–347. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02120 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ordinola-Zapata R, Bramante CM, Aprecio RM, Handysides R, Jaramillo DE (2014) Biofilm removal by 6% sodium hypochlorite activated by different irrigation techniques. Int Endod J 47(7):659–666. doi: 10.1111/iej.12202 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Macedo R, Verhaagen B, Fernandez Rivas D, Versluid M, Wesselink P, van der Sluis L (2014) Cavitation measurement during sonic and ultrasonic activated irrigation. J Endo 40(4):580–583. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.09.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ruddle CJ (2008) Endodontic disinfection: tsunami irrigation. Endod Topics 11:7–15Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brito PRR, Souza LC, de Oliveira JCM et al (2009) Comparison of the effectiveness of three irrigation techniques in reducing intracanal Enterococcus faecalis pupulations: an in vitro study. J Endod 35(10):1422–1427. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.07.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Huffaker SK, Safavi K, Spangberg LSW, Kaufman B (2010) Influence of a passive sonic irrigation system on the elimination of bacteria from root canal systems: a clinical study. J Endod 36(8):1315–1318. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.04.024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    George R, Meyers IW, Walsh LJ (2008) Laser activation of endodontic irrigants with improved conical laser fiber tips for removing smear layer in the apical third of the root canal. J Endod 34(12):1524–1527. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.08.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    De Groot SD, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, Wu MK, Wesselink PR, van der Sluis LW (2009) Laser-activated irrigation within root canals: cleaning efficacy and flow visualization. Int Endod J 42(12):1077–1083. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01634.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blanken J, De Moor RJ, Meire M, Verdaasdonk R (2009) Laser induced explosive vapor and cavitation resulting in effective irrigation of the root canal. Part 1: a visualization study. Lasers Surg Med 41(7):514–519. doi: 10.1002/lsm.20798 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    DiVito EE, Colonna MP, Olivi G (2011) The photoacoustic efficacy of an Er:YAG laser with radial and stripped tips on root canal dentin walls: An SEM evaluation. J Lasers Dent 19(1):156–161Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    DiVito E, Lloyd A (2012) ER:YAG laser for 3-dimensional debridement of canal systems: use of photon-induced photoacoustic streaming. Dent Today 31(11):124–127Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Peters OA, Bardsley S, Fong J, Pandher G, DiVito E (2011) Disinfection of root canals with photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming. J Endod 37(7):1008–1012. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.03.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pedulla E, Genovese C, Campagna E, Tempera RE (2012) Decontamination efficacy of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming (PIPS) of irrigants using low-energy laser settings: an ex vivo study. Int Endod J 45(9):865–870. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02044.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sahar-Helfit S, Stabholz A, Moshonov J, Gutkin V, Redenski I, Steinberg D (2013) Effect of Er:YAG laser activated irrigation solution on Enterococcus faecalis biofilm in an ex-vivo root canal model. Photomed Laser Surg 31(7):334–341. doi: 10.1089/pho.2012.3445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stojicic S, Shen Y, Qian W, Johnson B, Haapasalo M (2012) Antibacterial and smear layer removal ability of a novel irrigant, QMiX. Int Endod J 45(4):363–371. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01985.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meire MA, De Prijck K, Coenye T, Nelis HJ, De Moor RJG (2009) Effectiveness of different laser systems to kill Enterococcus faecalis in aqueous suspension and in an infected tooth model. Int Endod J 42(4):351–359. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01532.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Molander A, Warfvinge J, Reit C et al (2007) Clinical and radiographic evaluation of one- and two vist endodontic treatment of asymptomatic necrotic teeth with apical periodontitis; a randomized clinical tral. J Endod 33(10):1145–1148CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Al Shahrani M, DiVito E, Hughes CV, Nathanson D, Huang GT (2004) Enhanced removal of Enterococcus faecalis biofilms in the root canal using sodium hypochlorite plus photon-induced photoacoustic streaming: an in vitro study. Photomed Laser Surg 32(5):260–266. doi: 10.1089/pho.2014.3714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhu X, Yin X, Chang JW, Wang Y, Cheung GS, Zhang C (2013) Comparison of the antibacterial effect and smear layer removal using photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming aided irrigation versus a conventional irrigation in single-rooted canals: an in vitro study. Photomed Laser Surg 31(8):371–377. doi: 10.1089/pho.2013.3515 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Qian W, Gao Y (2010) Irrigation in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am 54(2):291–312. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2009.12.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Caron G (2007) Cleaning efficiency of the apical millimeters of curved canals using three different modalities of irrigant activation: an SEM study (masters thesis). Paris:Paris VII UniversityGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pasqualini D, Cuffini AM, Scotti N et al (2010) Comparative evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of a 5% sodium hypochlorite subsonic-activated solution. J Endod 36(8):1358–1360. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.03.035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Arslan H, Capar ID, Saygili G, Gok T, Akcay M (2014) Effect of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming on removal of apically placed dentinal debris. Int Endod J 47(11):1072–1077. doi: 10.1111/iej.12251 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Macedo RC, Wesselink PR, Zaccheo F, Fanali D, van der Sluis LW (2010) Reaction rate of NaOCl in contact with bovine dentine: effect of activation, exposure time, concentration and pH. Int Endod J 43(12):1108–1115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01785.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Elakanti S, Cherukuri G, Rao VG, Chandrasekhar V, Rao AS, Tummala M (2015) Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of QMix™ 2 in 1, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans. J Conserv Dent 18(2):128–131. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.153067 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Simões M, Pereira MO, Vieira MJ (2005) Effect of mechanical stress on biofilms challenged by different chemicals. Water Res 39(20):5142–5152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wang Z, Shen Y, Ma J, Haapasalo M (2012) The effect of detergents on the antibacterial activity of disinfecting solutions in dentin. J Endod 38(7):948–953. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.03.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Niu LN, Luo XJ, Li GH, Bortoluzzi EA, Mao J, Chen JH, Gutmann JL, Pashley DH, Tay FR (2014) Effects of different sonic activation protocols on debridement efficacy in teeth with single-rooted canals. J Dent 42(8):1001–1009. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.05.007 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nascimento CA, Tanomaru-Filho M, Faria-Junior NB, Faria G, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM (2014) Antimicrobial activity of root canal irrigants associated with cetrimide against biofilm and planktonic Enterococcus faecalis. J Contemp Dent Pract 15(5):603–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Balić
    • 1
  • R. Lucić
    • 1
  • K. Mehadžić
    • 1
  • I. Bago
    • 2
    Email author
  • I. Anić
    • 2
  • S. Jakovljević
    • 3
  • V. Plečko
    • 4
  1. 1.Student of the School of Dental MedicineUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Department of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry School of Dental MedicineUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  3. 3.Department of Materials, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval ArchitectureUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  4. 4.Microbiology DepartmentUniversity Hospitals of Morecambe BayLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations