Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Er:YAG laser and ultrasonic in root canal disinfection under minimally invasive access cavity

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

Abstract 

The disinfection of root canal through minimally invasive access cavity remains questionable. This in vitro study compared the effectiveness of three disinfection measures including conventional irrigation, ultrasonic assisted irrigation, and erbium:yttrium–aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser assisted irrigation through conventionally or minimally invasive access. Sixty-six extracted maxillary first molars were randomly divided into group 1 conventionally invasive access group (CIA) and group 2 computer-guided minimally invasive access group (MIA). Each group was further randomly divided into three subgroups, (A) conventional irrigation (CI), (B) passive ultrasonic agitation (PUI), and (C) Er:YAG laser activated irrigation (LAI). Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) infection model was established inside all root canals after instrumentation was performed up to ProTaper Universal F2. After various disinfection methods, microbial samples were collected from root canals by paper tip method and cultured, and colony forming units (CFU) values of each sample were calculated. Then the root canals were enlarged to the size of F3, after which dentin debris was collected from the F3 file. After dilution and culturing, the CFU value was calculated for each group. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to test the interaction. The results revealed a significant antagonism (F = 3.394, P = 0.043). The bacterial CFU counts of group B and group C were significantly less than that of group A (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between group B and C (P > 0.05). Additionally, group 2A was better than group 1A (P < 0.05); there was no significant difference between group 1B and group 2B, group 1C and group 2C (P > 0.05). Comparison of the bacterial CFU counts in dentin debris after disinfection, the results revealed a significant antagonism (F = 7.224, P = 0.002), and group C had the least. The disinfection effect of Er:YAG laser or ultrasonic assisted computer-guided minimally invasive access is similar to conventionally invasive access, and Er:YAG laser is better than ultrasonic in removing bacteria from dentinal tubules and is easy to operate, which is more suitable for minimally invasive root canal treatment.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Waltimo T, Trope M, Haapasalo M, Ørstavik D (2005) Clinical efficacy of treatment procedures in endodontic infection control and one year follow-up of periapical healing. Journal of endodontics 31(12):863–866. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000164856.27920.85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zandi H, Petronijevic N, Mdala I, Kristoffersen A, Enersen M, Rôças I, Siqueira J, Ørstavik D (2019) Outcome of endodontic retreatment using 2 root canal irrigants and influence of infection on healing as determined by a molecular method: a randomized clinical trial. Journal of endodontics 45(9):1089-1098.e1085. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2019.05.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Yahata Y, Masuda Y, Komabayashi T (2017) Comparison of apical centring ability between incisal-shifted access and traditional lingual access for maxillary anterior teeth. Australian endodontic journal the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc 43(3):123–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allen C, Meyer C, Yoo E, Vargas J, Liu Y, Jalali P (2018) Stress distribution in a tooth treated through minimally invasive access compared to one treated through traditional access: a finite element analysis study. J conserv dent: JCD 21(5):505–509. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_260_18

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Li Z, Wang L, Zhu X, Niu C, Huang Z, Sun H (2020) [Evaluation on the fracture resistance of dental tissues after guided plate-mediated precision minimally invasive root canal treatment]. Shanghai kou qiang yi xue = Shanghai journal of stomatology 29(5):487–491. https://doi.org/10.19439/j.sjos.2020.05.008

  6. 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. Journal of endodontics 40(8):1160–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.12.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vieira G, Pérez A, Alves F, Provenzano J, Mdala I, Siqueira J, Rôças I (2020) Impact of contracted endodontic cavities on root canal disinfection and shaping. Journal of endodontics 46(5):655–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2020.02.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Neelakantan P, Khan K, Hei Ng G, Yip C, Zhang C, Pan Cheung G (2018) Does the orifice-directed dentin conservation access design debride pulp chamber and mesial root canal systems of mandibular molars similar to a traditional access design? Journal of endodontics 44(2):274–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2017.10.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Neelakantan P, Cheng C, 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(6):602–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12354

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Guidotti R, Merigo E, Fornaini C, Rocca J, Medioni E, Vescovi P (2014) Er:YAG 2,940-nm laser fiber in endodontic treatment: a help in removing smear layer. Lasers Med Sci 29(1):69–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-012-1217-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lee B, Jeng J, Lin C, Shoji S, Lan W (2004) Thermal effect and morphological changes induced by Er:YAG laser with two kinds of fiber tips to enlarge the root canals. Photomed Laser Surg 22(3):191–197. https://doi.org/10.1089/1549541041438704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Watanabe S, Saegusa H, Anjo T, Ebihara A, Kobayashi C, Suda H (2010) Dentin strain induced by laser irradiation. Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc 36(2):74–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2009.00194.x

  13. Afkhami F, Ahmadi P, Chiniforush N, Sooratgar A (2021) Effect of different activations of silver nanoparticle irrigants on the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis. Clin Oral Invest 25(12):6893–6899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03979-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Swimberghe R, De Clercq A, De Moor R, Meire M (2019) Efficacy of sonically, ultrasonically and laser-activated irrigation in removing a biofilm-mimicking hydrogel from an isthmus model. Int Endod J 52(4):515–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13024

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Korkut E, Torlak E, Gezgin O, Özer H, Şener Y (2018) Antibacterial and smear layer removal efficacy of Er:YAG laser irradiation by photon-induced photoacoustic streaming in primary molar root canals: a preliminary study. Photomed Laser Surg 36(9):480–486. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2017.4369

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. L W M vdS, (2007) Passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: a review of the literature. Int Endod J 40(6):415–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01243.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jiang LM, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, Langedijk J, Wesselink P, Sluis LWMVD (2011) The influence of the ultrasonic intensity on the cleaning efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation. J Endod 37(5):688–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.02.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bryce G, MacBeth N, Gulabivala K, Ng Y (2018) The efficacy of supplementary sonic irrigation using the EndoActivator system determined by removal of a collagen film from an ex vivo model. Int Endod J 51(4):489–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12870

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Goerig A, Michelich R, Schultz H (1982) Instrumentation of root canals in molar using the step-down technique. Journal of endodontics 8(12):550–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(82)80015-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Patel S, Rhodes J (2007) A practical guide to endodontic access cavity preparation in molar teeth. Br Dent J 203(3):133–140. https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2007.682

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Galler K, Grubmüller V, Schlichting R, Widbiller M, Eidt A, Schuller C, Wölflick M, Hiller K, Buchalla W (2019) Penetration depth of irrigants into root dentine after sonic, ultrasonic and photoacoustic activation. Int Endod J 52(8):1210–1217. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sundqvist G, Figdor D, Persson S, Sjögren U (1998) Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative re-treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 85(1):86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1079-2104(98)90404-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Karim IE, Kennedy J, Hussey D (2007) The antimicrobial effects of root canal irrigation and medication. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology 103(4):560–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.10.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Koch J, Jaramillo D, DiVito E, Peters O (2016) Irrigant flow during photon-induced photoacoustic streaming (PIPS) using particle image velocimetry (PIV). Clin Oral Invest 20(2):381–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1562-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bormashenko E (2019) Moses effect: physics and applications. Adv Coll Interface Sci 269:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2019.04.003

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Paiva S, Siqueira JF, R??As IN, Carmo FL, Ferreira DC, Curvelo J, Soares R, Rosado AS (2012) Supplementing the antimicrobial effects of chemomechanical debridement with either passive ultrasonic irrigation or a final rinse with chlorhexidine: a clinical study. Journal of Endodontics 38(9):1202-1206 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.06.023

  27. Mozo S, Llena C, Forner L (2012) Review of ultrasonic irrigation in endodontics: increasing action of irrigating solutions. Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal 17(3):e512-516. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.17621

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Saghiri MA, Asgar K, Gutmann JL, Garcia-Godoy F, Asatorian A (2012) Effect of laser irradiation on root canal walls after final irrigation with 17% EDTA or BioPure MTAD: X-ray diffraction and SEM analysis. Quintessence Int 43(10):e127

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Olivi G, DiVito E, Peters O, Kaitsas V, Angiero F, Signore A, Benedicenti S (2014) Disinfection efficacy of photon-induced photoacoustic streaming on root canals infected with Enterococcus faecalis: an ex vivo study. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) 145(8):843–848. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.2014.46

  30. Guo H, Yue L, Gao Y (2011) [Status of bacterial colonization in infected root canal]. Beijing da xue xue bao Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University Health sciences 43(1):26–28

  31. Meire MA, Coenye T, Nelis HJ, Moor R (2012) Evaluation of Nd:YAG and Er:YAG irradiation, antibacterial photodynamic therapy and sodium hypochlorite treatment on Enterococcus faecalis biofilms. Int Endod J 45(5):482–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.02000.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Peeters H, De Moor R (2015) Measurement of pressure changes during laser-activated irrigant by an erbium, chromium: yttrium, scandium, gallium, garnet laser. Lasers Med Sci 30(5):1449–1455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-014-1605-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mohammadi Z, Jafarzadeh H, Shalavi S, Palazzi F (2017) Recent advances in root canal disinfection: a review. Iranian endodontic journal 12(4):402–406. https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.v12i4.17935

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by Teaching and scientific research project of national medical degree graduate education steering committee B1-YX20180302-03.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Stomatology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266003, China

    XiaoYang Shan, Nan Yang, YueYue Wang & HuiBin Sun

  2. School of Stomatology, Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266003, China

    XiaoYang Shan, Jing Li, Nan Yang, YueYue Wang & HuiBin Sun

  3. Department of Endodontics, The Dental College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, 30809, USA

    FuCong Tian

  4. Department of Oral Implantology, The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, 266003, China

    Jing Li

Authors
  1. XiaoYang Shan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. FuCong Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jing Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nan Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. YueYue Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. HuiBin Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to HuiBin Sun.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

Shan, X., Tian, F., Li, J. et al. Comparison of Er:YAG laser and ultrasonic in root canal disinfection under minimally invasive access cavity. Lasers Med Sci 37, 3249–3258 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-022-03613-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-022-03613-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation