Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of different irrigation regimens on the dentinal tubule penetration of a bioceramic-based root canal sealer: a confocal analysis study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Lasers in Medical Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aims to assess the efficacy of various irrigation protocols on the dentinal tubule penetration of a bioceramic-based endodontic sealer. Sixty-four single-rooted extracted human mandibular incisors were used. After instrumentation, teeth were randomly divided into the following four groups (n = 16 each) according to the final irrigation technique: group 1, conventional endodontic needle (CEN); group 2, EndoActivator (EA); group 3, Er,Cr: YSGG laser; group 4, XP-endo Finisher (XPF). The root canals were finally irrigated with 17% EDTA and 5.25% NaOCl for 1 min (min) respectively. The teeth were then obturated with Endosequence BC Points and rhodamine B dye-labeled BC Sealer. After 2 weeks, 1-mm-thick transverse sections were cut 2 and 5 mm from the apex, and examined by confocal laser scanning microscopy at 5 × magnification. The total percentage of sealer penetration (TPSP), sealer penetration area (SPA), and maximum sealer penetration depth (MSPD) was measured. Data were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis, Dunn’s multiple comparison, and Wilcoxon tests, with significance set at P < 0.05. At 2 mm level, no significant differences were detected among the groups (P > 0.05). At the 5 mm level, the XPF group showed significantly higher values for both TPSP and SPA in comparison with the Er,Cr: YSGG laser and CEN groups (P < 0.05), but no significant difference was observed with the EA group. The choice of different final irrigation techniques can affect dentinal tubule penetration.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Johnson W, Kulıld JC, Tay F (2016) Cohen’s pathways of the pulp. In: Hargreaves KM (ed) Obturation of the cleaned and shaped root canal system, 11th edn. Elsevier, USA, pp 280–323

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ruddle CJ (2015) Endodontic disinfection: tsunami irrigation. Saudi Endod J 5(1):1. https://doi.org/10.4103/1658-5984.149080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wigdor HA, Walsh JT Jr, Featherstone JD, Visuri SR, Fried D, Waldvogel JL (1995) Lasers in dentistry. Lasers Surg Med 16(2):103–133. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.1900160202

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Keskin C, Sariyilmaz E, Sariyilmaz Ö (2017) Efficacy of XP-endo Finisher file in removing calcium hydroxide from simulated internal resorption cavity. J Endod 43(1):126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.09.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Muliyar S, Shameem KA, Thankachan RP, Francis P, Jayapalan C, Hafiz KA (2014) Microleakage in endodontics. J Int Oral Health 6(6):99–104

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kuçi A, Alaçam T, Yavaş Ö et al (2014) Sealer penetration into dentinal tubules in the presence or absence of smear layer: a confocal laser scanning microscopic study. J Endod 40(10):1627–1631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.03.0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang W, Li Z, Peng B (2010) Ex vivo cytotoxicity of a new calcium silicate–based canal filling material. Int Endod J 43(9):769–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01733.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McMichael GE, Primus CM, Opperman LA (2016) Dentinal tubule penetration of tricalcium silicate sealers. J Endod 42(4):632–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.12.012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Aydın ZU, Özyürek T, Keskin B et al (2019) Effect of chitosan nanoparticle, QMix, and EDTA on TotalFill BC sealers’ dentinal tubule penetration: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Odontology 107(1):64–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-018-0359-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tuncer AK (2015) Effect of QMix 2in1 on sealer penetration into the dentinal tubules. J Endod 41(2):257–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.10.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Prado M, Simao RA, Gomes BPFdA (2014) A microleakage study of gutta-percha/AH Plus and Resilon/Real self-etch systems after different irrigation protocols. J Appl Oral Sci 22(3):174–179. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720130174

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Bayram HM, Bayram E, Kanber M, Celikten B, Saklar F (2017) Effect of different chelating solutions on the push-out bond strength of various root canal sealers. Biomed Res 28:401–406

    Google Scholar 

  13. Vertucci FJ (2005) Root canal morphology and its relationship to endodontic procedures. Endod Top 10(1):3–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00129.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schneider SW (1971) A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 32(2):271–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Küçük M, Kermeoğlu F (2019) Efficacy of different irrigation methods on dentinal tubule penetration of Chlorhexidine, QMix and Irritrol: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Aust Endod J 45(2):202–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Blanken J, De Moor RJG, 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 41:514–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.20798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bolles JA, He J, Svoboda KK et al (2013) Comparison of Vibringe, EndoActivator, and needle irrigation on sealer penetration in extracted human teeth. J Endod 39(5):708–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.01.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Machado R, Cruz ATG, de Araujo BMDM et al (2018) Tubular dentin sealer penetration after different final irrigation protocols: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Microsc Res Tech 81(6):649–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.23019

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. De Deus GA, Gurgel-Filho ED, Maniglia-Ferreira C et al (2004) The influence of filling technique on depth of tubule penetration by root canal sealer: a study using light microscopy and digital image processing. Aust Endod J 30(1):23–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2004.tb00164.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Weis MV, Parashos P, Messer H (2004) Effect of obturation technique on sealer cement thickness and dentinal tubule penetration. Int Endod J 37(10):653–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00839.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gharib SR, Tordik PA, Imamura GM et al (2007) A confocal laser scanning microscope investigation of the epiphany obturation system. J Endod 33(8):957–961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2007.03.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moon Y-M, Kim H-C, Bae K-S et al (2012) Effect of laser-activated irrigation of 1320-nanometer Nd: YAG laser on sealer penetration in curved root canals. J Endod 38(4):531–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.12.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Atmeh A, Chong E, Richard G et al (2012) Dentin-cement interfacial interaction: calcium silicates and polyalkenoates. J Dent Res 91(5):454–459

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Russell AA, Chandler NP, Hauman C et al (2013) The butterfly effect: an investigation of sectioned roots. J Endod 39(2):208–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.09.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Akcay M, Arslan H, Durmus N et al (2016) Dentinal tubule penetration of AH Plus, iRoot SP, MTA fillapex, and guttaflow bioseal root canal sealers after different final irrigation procedures: a confocal microscopic study. Lasers Surg Med 48(1):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/lsm.22446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Paulo HD, Pereira JC, Svizero NR et al (2006) Use of fluorescent compounds in assessing bonded resin-based restorations: a literature review. J Dent 34(9):623–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2005.12.004

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Jeong JW, DeGraft-Johnson A, Dorn SO et al (2017) Dentinal tubule penetration of a calcium silicate–based root canal sealer with different obturation methods. J Endod 43(4):633–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.11.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Okşan T, Aktener B, Şen B et al (1993) The penetration of root canal sealers into dentinai tubules. A scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 26(5):301–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1993.tb00575.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Townsend C, Maki J (2009) An in vitro comparison of new irrigation and agitation techniques to ultrasonic agitation in removing bacteria from a simulated root canal. J Endod 35(7):1040–1043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.04.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Montero-Miralles P, Torres-Lagares D, Segura-Egea JJ et al (2018) Comparative study of debris and smear layer removal with EDTA and Er, Cr: YSGG laser. J Clin Exp Dent 10(6):e598-602. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.54936

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 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(2):178–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0251-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chaudhry S, Yadav S, Talwar S, Verma M (2017) Effect of EndoActivator and Er, Cr: YSGG laser activation of Qmix, as final endodontic irrigant, on sealer penetration: a confocal microscopic study. J Clin Exp Dent 9(2):e218-222. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.53270

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Özlek E, Neelakantan P, Akkol E, Gündüz H, Uçar AY, Belli S (2020) Dentinal tubule penetration and dislocation resistance of a new bioactive root canal sealer following root canal medicament removal using sonic agitation or laser-activated irrigation. Eur Endod J 5(3):264–270. https://doi.org/10.14744/eej.2020.92905

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 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 49:279–286. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Nagas E, Uyanik MO, Eymirli A et al (2012) Dentin moisture conditions affect the adhesion of root canal sealers. J Endod 38(2):240–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.09.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ozkocak I, Sonat B (2015) Evaluation of effects on the adhesion of various root canal sealers after Er: YAG laser and irrigants are used on the dentin surface. J Endod 41(8):1331–1336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.03.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Corona SAM, Souza AED, Chinelatti MA, Borsatto MC, Pécora JD, Palma-Dibb RG (2007) Effect of energy and pulse repetition rate of Er: YAG laser on dentin ablation ability and morphological analysis of the laser-irradiated substrate. Photomed Laser Surg 25(1):26–33. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2006.1075

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Zapletalová Z, JrJ P, Novotný R, Chmelíčková H (2007) Suitable conditions for sealing of open dentinal tubules using a pulsed Nd: YAG laser. Photomed Laser Surg 25(6):495–499. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2007.2085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ayfer Atav Ateş, Burçin Arıcan, Elif Çiftçioğlu & E. Sedat Küçükay

Authors
  1. Ayfer Atav Ateş
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Burçin Arıcan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elif Çiftçioğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Sedat Küçükay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Ayfer Atav Ateş contributed to conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, interpretation, and drafted and critically revised the manuscript; Burçin Arıcan contributed to conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, interpretation, and drafted and critically revised the manuscript; Elif Çiftçioğlu contributed to design and drafted and critically revised the manuscript; Enver Sedat Küçükay contributed to conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, interpretation, and drafted and critically revised the manuscript. All authors gave final approval and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ayfer Atav Ateş.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Istanbul University Dentistry Faculty (2019/20).

Informed consent

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

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

This research was orally presented in 19th ESE Biennal Congress-Vienna 12–14 September 2019.

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

Ateş, A.A., Arıcan, B., Çiftçioğlu, E. et al. Influence of different irrigation regimens on the dentinal tubule penetration of a bioceramic-based root canal sealer: a confocal analysis study. Lasers Med Sci 36, 1771–1777 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-021-03356-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-021-03356-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation