Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The use of auxiliary devices during irrigation to increase the cleaning ability of a chelating agent

  • Prado, Marina Carvalho (PROCLIN Department, School of Dentistry, State University of Rio de Janeiro) ;
  • Leal, Fernanda (PROCLIN Department, School of Dentistry, State University of Rio de Janeiro) ;
  • Simao, Renata Antoun (Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro) ;
  • Gusman, Heloisa (Department of Dental Clinic, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro) ;
  • do Prado, Maira (Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro)
  • Received : 2016.09.23
  • Accepted : 2016.12.13
  • Published : 2017.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: This study investigated the cleaning ability of ultrasonically activated irrigation (UAI) and a novel activation system with reciprocating motion (EC, EasyClean, Easy Equipamentos $Odontol\acute{o}gicos$) when used with a relatively new chelating agent (QMix, Dentsply). In addition, the effect of QMix solution when used for a shorter (1 minute) and a longer application time (3 minutes) was investigated. Materials and Methods: Fifty permanent human teeth were prepared with K3 rotary system and 6% sodium hypochlorite. Samples were randomly assigned to five groups (n = 10) according to the final irrigation protocol: G1, negative control (distilled water); G2, positive control (QMix 1 minute); G3, QMix 1 minute/UAI; G4, QMix 1 minute/EC; G5, QMix 3 minutes. Subsequently the teeth were prepared and three photomicrographs were obtained in each root third of root walls, by scanning electron microscopy. Two blinded and pre-calibrated examiners evaluated the images using a four-category scoring system. Data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (p < 0.05). Results: There were differences among groups (p < 0.05). UAI showed better cleaning ability than EC (p < 0.05). There were improvements when QMix was used with auxiliary devices in comparison with conventional irrigation (p < 0.05). Conventional irrigation for 3 minutes presented significantly better results than its use for 1 minute (p < 0.05). Conclusions: QMix should be used for 1 minute when it is used with UAI, since this final irrigation protocol showed the best performance and also allowed clinical optimization of this procedure.

Keywords

References

  1. Metzger Z, Solomonov M, Kfir A. The role of mechanical instrumentation in the cleaning of root canals. Endod Topics 2013;29:87-109. https://doi.org/10.1111/etp.12048
  2. Mozo S, Llena C, Forner L. Review of ultrasonic irrigation in endodontics: increasing action of irrigating solutions. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012;17:e512-e516.
  3. Munoz HR, Camacho-Cuadra K. In vivo efficacy of three different endodontic irrigation systems for irrigant delivery to working length of mesial canals of mandibular molars. J Endod 2012;38:445-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.12.007
  4. Wang Z, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. Effect of smear layer against disinfection protocols on Enterococcus faecalis - infected dentin. J Endod 2013;39:1395-1400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.05.007
  5. Morgental RD, Singh A, Sappal H, Kopper PM, Vier-Pelisser FV, Peters OA. Dentin inhibits the antibacterial effect of new and conventional endodontic irrigants. J Endod 2013;39:406-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.10.028
  6. Torabinejad M, Handysides R, Khademi AA, Bakland LK. Clinical implications of the smear layer in endodontics: a review. Oral surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;94:658-666. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2002.128962
  7. Kamel WH, Kataia EM. Comparison of the efficacy of smear clear with and without a canal brush in smear layer and debris removal from instrumented root canal using WaveOne versus ProTaper: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2014;40:446-450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.09.028
  8. Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L, Armellin E, Conte G, Cianconi L. 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 2013;39:1456-1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.07.028
  9. Paragliola R, Franco V, Fabiani C, Mazzoni A, Nato F, Tay FR, Breschi L, Grandini S. Final rinse optimization: influence of different agitation protocols. J Endod 2010;36:282-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.10.004
  10. Jiang LM, Lak B, Eijsvogels LM, Wesselink P, Van Der Sluis LW. Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of different final irrigation techniques. J Endod 2012;38:838-841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.03.002
  11. Curtis TO, Sedgley CM. Comparison of a continuous ultrasonic irrigation device and conventional needle irrigation in the removal of root canal debris. J Endod 2012;38:1261-1264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.05.012
  12. Van der Sluis LW, Versluis M, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: a review of the literature. Int Endod J 2007;40:415-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01243.x
  13. Kato AS, Cunha RS, da Silveira Bueno CE, Pelegrine RA, Fontana CE, de Martin AS. Investigation of the efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation versus irrigation with reciprocating activation: an environmental scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2016;42:659-663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.01.016
  14. Prado M, Gusman H, Gomes BP, Simao RA. Scanning electron microscopic investigation of the effectiveness of phosphoric acid in smear layer removal when compared with EDTA and citric acid. J Endod 2011;37:255-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.11.011
  15. Mancini M, Armellin E, Casaglia A, Cerroni L, Cianconi L. A comparative study of smear layer removal and erosion in apical intraradicular dentine with three irrigating solutions: a scanning electron microscopy evaluation. J Endod 2009;35:900-903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.03.052
  16. Dai L, Khechen K, Khan S, Gillen B, Loushine BA, Wimmer CE, Gutmann JL, Pashley D, Tay FR. The effect of QMix, an experimental antibacterial root canal irrigant, on removal of canal wall smear layer and debris. J Endod 2011;37:80-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.10.004
  17. Aranda-Garcia AJ, Kuga MC, Vitorino KR, Chavez-Andrade GM, Duarte MA, Bonetti-Filho I, Faria G, So MV. Effect of the root canal final rinse protocols on the debris and smear layer removal and on the pushout strength of an epoxy-based sealer. Microsc Res Tech 2013;76:533-537. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22196
  18. Plotino G, Pameijer CH, Grande NM, Somma F. Ultrasonics in endodontics: a review of the literature. J Endod 2007;33:81-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.10.008
  19. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod 2006;32:389-398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2005.09.014
  20. Prado M, Santos Junior HM, Rezende CM, Pinto AC, Faria RB, Simao RA, Gomes BP. Interactions between irrigants commonly used in endodontic practice: a chemical analysis. J Endod 2013;39:505-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.050
  21. Elnaghy AM. Effect of QMix irrigant on bond strength of glass fiber posts to root dentine. Int Endod J 2014;47:280-289. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12145

Cited by

  1. Micro-CT evaluation of different final irrigation protocols on the removal of hard-tissue debris from isthmus-containing mesial root of mandibular molars pp.1436-3771, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2483-1
  2. Smear layer removal by passive ultrasonic irrigation and 2 new mechanical methods for activation of the chelating solution vol.46, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2021.46.e11