Advertisement

The efficacy of ultrasonic and PIPS (photon-induced acoustic streaming) irrigation to remove artificially placed dentine debris plugs out of an artificial and natural root model

  • Christoph Kurzmann
  • Maarten A. Meire
  • Stefan Lettner
  • Eleftherios Terry R. Farmakis
  • Andreas Moritz
  • Roeland J. G. De MoorEmail author
Original Article
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

The aim was to validate an artificial resin ‘root canal wall groove model’ (RCWGM) mimicking the situation of natural roots with a groove of identical dimensions on debris removal out of these grooves, and to evaluate Erbium ‘laser-activated irrigation’ (LAI) with two conical tips at PIPS (photon-induced photoacoustic streaming) settings, with different activation times and different root canal positions on debris removal out of the grooves. A split RCWGM was used (resin blocks and roots of maxillary canines) with a canal size 40/0.06. The grooves in the apical third were filled with stained dentinal debris. Seventeen irrigation protocols (n = 20) were used: syringe-needle irrigation (3× 20 s), manual dynamic activation (1× 60 s), ultrasonically activated irrigation (UAI) with 25/25 Irrisafe (3× 20 s) and LAI (2940 nm Er:YAG) with X-Pulse or PIPS tips at PIPS settings (20 mJ, 50 μs, 20 Hz) and with the fibre (IN) or (OUT) the canal: IN during 1× 20 s, and OUT during 1× 20 s, 2× 20 s, 3× 20 s, 30 s, 2× 30 s and 1× 60 s. The quantity of remaining dentine debris in the groove was evaluated on a numerical scale. Statistical analysis was performed by means of proportional odds logistic regression, equivalence testing and Wald tests. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Resin models and the RCWGM with natural teeth can be called equivalent (log odds ratio 0.185). There were mostly no statistically significant differences for debris removal between UAI and LAI (p > 0.05) and between LAI with PIPS and X-Pulse (p > 0.05). Although not statistically different, the numbers of completely cleaned grooves were higher with LAI than with UAI for a 1-min activation, confirming findings from other studies. There is no difference in cleaning efficacy between X-Pulse and PIPS tips at PIPS settings.

Keywords

Root canal debridement Erbium laser Irrigant activation Laser-activated irrigation PIPS Ultrasonically activated irrigation Ultrasonic 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mr. Ahmed Basran for his skilful contribution and support in data acquisition.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The authors declare that the protocol of this article was approved by the Ghent University Hospital Ethical Committee, EC/2014/0578.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from 20 patients whose teeth were extracted as part of a dental procedure at the Ghent University Hospital Dental Clinic. The informed consent document was approved by the Ghent University Hospital Ethical Committee, EC/2014/0578.

References

  1. 1.
    Gulabivala K, Patel B, Evans G, Ng YL (2005) Effects of mechanical and chemical procedures on root canal surfaces. Endod Top 10:103–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ram Z (1977) Effectiveness of root canal irrigation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 44:306–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J, Choi KK, Pashley DH, Tay FR (2009) Review on contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod 35:791–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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 51:605–621PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 41:514–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gregorcic P, Jezersek M, Mozina J (2012) Optodynamic energy-conversion efficiency during an Er:YAG-laser-pulse delivery into a liquid through different fiber-tip geometries. J Biomed Opt 17:075006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olivi G, De Moor RJG (2016) Laser-activated irrigation. In: Olivi G, De Moor R, DiVito E (eds) Lasers in endodontics. Scientific Background and Applications, 1st edn. Springer, Cham, pp 193–217Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blanken JW, Verdaasdonk RM (2007) Cavitation as a working mechanism of the Er, Cr:YSGG laser in endodontics: a visualization study. J Oral Laser Appl 7:97–106Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    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 42:1077–1083PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ohl C-D, Arora M, Dijkink R, Janve V, Lohse D (2006) Surface cleaning from laser-induced cavitation bubbles. Appl Phys Lett 89:074102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meire MA, Poelman D, De Moor RJ (2014) Optical properties of root canal irrigants in the 300-3,000 nm wavelength region. Lasers Med Sci 29:1557–1562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Moor RJ, Blanken J, Meire M, Verdaasdonk R (2009) Laser induced explosive vapor and cavitation resulting in effective irrigation of the root canal. Part 2: evaluation of the efficacy. Lasers Surg Med 41:520–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Moor RJ, Meire M, Goharkhay K, Moritz A, Vanobbergen J (2010) Efficacy of ultrasonic versus laser-activated irrigation to remove artificially placed dentin debris plugs. J Endod 36:1580–1583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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 47:1072–1077PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Deleu E, Meire MA, De Moor RJ (2015) Efficacy of laser-based irrigant activation methods in removing debris from simulated root canal irregularities. Lasers Med Sci 30:831–835PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meire MA, Havelaerts S, De Moor RJ (2016) Influence of lasing parameters on the cleaning efficacy of laser-activated irrigation with pulsed erbium lasers. Lasers Med Sci 31:653–658PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 32:1965–1970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peters OA, Bardsley S, Fong J, Pandher G, Divito E (2011) Disinfection of root canals with photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming. J Endod 37:1008–1012PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pedullà E, Genovese C, Campagna E, Tempera G, Rapisarda E (2012) Decontamination efficacy of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming (PIPS) of irrigants using low-energy laser settings: an ex vivo study. Int Endod J 45:865–870PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Al Shahrani M, DiVito E, Hughes CV, Nathanson D, Huang GT (2014) 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 32:260–266PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 47:659–666PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neelakantan P, Cheng CQ, Mohanraj R, Sriraman P, Subbarao C, Sharma S (2015) Antibiofilm activity of three irrigation protocols activated by ultrasonic, diode laser or Er:YAG laser in vitro. Int Endod J 48:602–610PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Azim AA, Aksel H, Zhuang T, Mashtare T, Babu JP, Huang GT (2016) Efficacy of 4 irrigation protocols in killing bacteria colonized in dentinal tubules examined by a novel confocal laser scanning microscope analysis. J Endod 42:928–934PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Balić M, Lucić R, Mehadžić K, Bago I, Anić I, Jakovljević S, Plečko V (2016) The efficacy of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming and sonic-activated irrigation combined with QMiX solution or sodium hypochlorite against intracanal E. faecalis biofilm. Lasers Med Sci 31:335–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cheng X, Chen B, Qiu J, He W, Lv H, Qu T, Yu Q, Tian Y (2016) Bactericidal effect of Er:YAG laser combined with sodium hypochlorite irrigation against Enterococcus faecalis deep inside dentinal tubules in experimentally infected root canals. J Med Microbiol 65:176–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Christo JE, Zilm PS, Sullivan T, Cathro PR (2016) Efficacy of low concentrations of sodium hypochlorite and low-powered Er,Cr:YSGG laser activated irrigation against an enterococcus faecalis biofilm. Int Endod J 49:279–286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cheng X, Xiang D, He W, Qiu J, Han B, Yu Q, Tian Y (2017) Bactericidal effect of Er:YAG laser-activated sodium hypochlorite irrigation against biofilms of enterococcus faecalis isolate from canal of root-filled teeth with periapical lesions. Photomed Laser Surg 35:386–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    De Meyer S, Meire MA, Coenye T, De Moor RJ (2017) Effect of laser-activated irrigation on biofilms in artificial root canals. Int Endod J 50:472–479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Olivi G, DiVito EE (2016) Advanced laser-activated irrigation: PIPSTM technique and clinical protocols. In: Olivi G, De Moor R, DiVito E (eds) Lasers in endodontics. Scientific Background and Applications, 1st edn. Springer, Cham, pp 219–292Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    DiVito E, Peters OA, Olivi G (2012) Effectiveness of the Erbium:YAG laser and new design radial and stripped tips in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation. Lasers Med Sci 27:273–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lee S-J, Wu M-K, Wesselink PR (2004) The effectiveness of syringe irrigation and ultrasonics to remove debris from simulated irregularities within prepared root canal walls. Int Endod J 37:672–678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    De Moor R, Meire M (2014) Pilot study. In: Havelaerts S (ed) In vitro investigation of the influence of various lasing parameters on the cleaning efficiency of laser-activated irrigation. MSc Thesis Master after Master in Endodontics, Ghent UniversityGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Havelaerts S (2014) In vitro investigation of the influence of various lasing parameters on the cleaning efficiency of laser-activated irrigation. MSc Thesis Master after Master in Endodontics, Ghent UniversityGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    R Core Team (2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.4.1. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna URL: http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 12/08/2018
  36. 36.
    Arslan H, Akcay M, Capar ID, Ertas H, Ok E, Uysal B (2014) Efficacy of needle irrigation, EndoActivator, and photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming technique on removal of double and triple antibiotic pastes. J Endod 40:1439–1442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Arslan H, Akcay M, Capar ID, Saygili G, Gok T, Ertas H (2015) An in vitro comparison of irrigation using photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming, ultrasonic, sonic and needle techniques in removing calcium hydroxide. Int Endod J 48:246–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Patterson SS (1963) In vivo and in vitro studies of the effect of the disodium salt of ethylenediamine tetra-acetate on human dentine and its endodontic implications. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 16:83–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    van der Sluis LW, Gambarini G, Wu MK, Wesselink PR (2006) The influence of volume, type of irrigant and flushing method on removing artificially placed dentine debris from the apical root canal during passive ultrasonic irrigation. Int Endod J 39:472–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jiang LM, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, Langedijk J, Wesselink P, van der Sluis LW (2011) The influence of the ultrasonic intensity on the cleaning efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation. J Endod 37:688–692PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    van der Sluis LW, Wu MK, Wesselink PR (2007) The evaluation of removal of calcium hydroxide paste from an artificial standardized groove in the apical root canal using different irrigation methodologies. Int Endod J 40:52–57PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Golob BS, Olivi G, Vrabec M, El Feghali R, Parker S, Benedicenti S (2017) Efficacy of photon-induced photoacoustic streaming in the reduction of enterococcus faecalis within the root canal: different settings and different sodium hypochlorite concentrations. J Endod 43:1730–1735PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    van der Sluis LWM, Verhaagen B, Macedo R, Versluis M (2016) The role of irrigation in endodontics. In: Olivi G, De Moor R, DiVito E (eds) Lasers in endodontics. Scientific Background and Applications, 1st edn. Springer, Cham, pp 45–69Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    De Moor R, Olivi G, Meire M (2018) The power of the bubble: erbium laser generated cavitation. In: Brugnera A, Namour S (eds) Laser dentistry – current clinical applications, 1st edn. Universal Publishers, Irvine, pp 239–257Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Van Hecke T (2018) Tandem shock wave cavitation enhancement with the SWEEPS modality: a reality? MSc Thesis Master after Master in Endodontics, Ghent University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Clinic of DentistryMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Austrian Cluster for Tissue RegenerationViennaAustria
  3. 3.Department of Endodontology, Dental SchoolGhent UniversityGentBelgium
  4. 4.Karl Donath Laboratory for Hard Tissue and Biomaterial Research, Division of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of DentistryMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  5. 5.Department of Endodontics, Dental SchoolNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensPeaniaGreece
  6. 6.MOND LatemGhent Dental Laser CentreSint-Martens-LatemBelgium

Personalised recommendations