The Journal of the Korean dental association (대한치과의사협회지)

The Korean Dental Association (대한치과의사협회)
권호 표지

The effect of ultrasonic file sizes on smear layer removal in passive ultrasonic irrigation

  • Kang, Hye-Ju (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Jung, Sera (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Cho, Ara (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Park, Mi-Gon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Jo, Hyoung-Hoon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • Received : 2019.12.06
  • Accepted : 2020.02.07
  • Published : 2020.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of CK files as an ultrasonic instrument, and to determine most efficient file size for smear layer removal. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six extracted human mandibular premolars with single, straight root canals and mature apices were mechanically prepared and randomly divided into three groups. Group 1 (Control) underwent conventional needle irrigation, Group 2 (CKS) underwent passive ultrasonic irrigation with a #20 CK file, and Group 3 (CKL) underwent passive ultrasonic irrigation with a #30 CK file. After preparation and irrigation, all teeth were dried and split with a chisel to obtain the mesial and distal half of their roots. Each sample was evaluated using a scanning electron microscope, and data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney rank sum tests (p<0.05). Results: The CKS group showed less debris in the apical third than the other groups (p<0.05). In this section, no significant difference was observed among the other groups. And, there was no significant difference among any groups for the middle third section. Conclusion: This study showed that PUI with #20 CK file removed more smear layer compared to using #30 CK file at the apical third of the root canal.

Keywords

References

  1. Waltimo T, Trope M, Haapasalo M, Orstavik D. Clinical efficacy of treatment procedures in endodontic infection control and one year follow-up of periapical healing. J Endod 2005;31(12):863-866. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000164856.27920.85
  2. Caron G, Nham K, Bronnec F, Machtou P. Effectiveness of different final irrigant activation protocols on smear layer removal in curved canals. J Endod 2010;36(8):1361-1366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.03.037
  3. Guppy DR, Curtis RV, Ford TR. Dentine chips produced by nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Endod Dent Traumatol 2000;16(6):258-264. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-9657.2000.016006258.x
  4. Jeon IS, Spangberg LS, Yoon TC, Kazemi RB, Kum KY. Smear layer production by 3 rotary reamers with different cutting blade designs in straight root canals: a scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;96(5):601-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(03)00303-2
  5. Schafer E, Zapke K. A comparative scanning electron microscopic investigation of the efficacy of manual and automated instrumentation of root canals. J Endod 2000;26(11):660-664. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200011000-00007
  6. Haidet J, Reader A, Beck M, Meyers W. An in vivo comparison of the step-back technique versus a step-back/ultrasonic technique in human mandibular molars. J Endod 1989;15(5):195-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(89)80234-1
  7. 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(6):658-666. https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2002.128962
  8. Burklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schafer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012;45(5):449-461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01996.x
  9. Van der Sluis LW, Gambarini G, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. 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 2006;39(6):472-476. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01108.x
  10. Sabins RA, Johnson JD, Hellstein JW. A comparison of the cleaning efficacy of short-term sonic and ultrasonic passive irrigation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod 2003;29(10): 674-678. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200310000-00016
  11. Ahmad M, Pitt Ford TR, Crum LA. Ultrasonic debridement of root canals: an insight into the mechanisms involved. J Endod 1987;13(3):93-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(87)80173-5
  12. Walker TL, del Rio CE. Histological evaluation of ultrasonic debridement comparing sodium hypochlorite and water. J Endod 1991;17(2):66-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81610-9
  13. Lee SJ, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. The efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation to remove artificially placed dentine debris from different-sized simulated plastic root canals. Int Endod J 2004;37(9):607-612. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00857.x
  14. Van der Sluis L, Wu MK, Wesselink P. Comparison of 2 flushing methods used during passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal. Quintessence Int 2009;40(10):875-879.
  15. Jiang LM, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, Zangrillo C, Cuckovic D, van der Sluis LW. An evaluation of the effect of pulsed ultrasound on the cleaning efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation. J Endod 2010;36(11): 1887-1891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.003
  16. Kuah HG, Lui JN, Tseng PS, Chen NN. The effect of EDTA with and without ultrasonics on removal of the smear layer. J Endod 2009;35(3):393-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.12.007
  17. Lui JN, Kuah HG, Chen NN. Effect of EDTA with and without surfactants or ultrasonics on removal of smear layer. J Endod 2007;33(4):472-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.12.007
  18. Tay FR, Gu LS, Schoeffel GJ, Wimmer C, Susin L, Zhang K, et al. Effect of vapor lock on root canal debridement by using a side-vented needle for positive-pressure irrigant delivery. J Endod 2010;36(4):745-750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.11.022
  19. Schoeffel GJ. The EndoVac method of endodontic irrigation: safety first. Dent Today 2007;26(10):92, 94, 96 passim.
  20. Chopra S, Murray PE, Namerow KN. A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of the effectiveness of the F-file versus ultrasonic activation of a K-file to remove smear layer. J Endod 2008;34(10): 1243-1245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.07.006
  21. 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(6):415-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01243.x
  22. Haapasalo M, Endal U, Zandi H, et al. Eradication of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation solutions. Endod Topics 2005;10:77-102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00135.x
  23. Paragliola R, Franco V, Fabiani C, Mazzoni A, Nato F, Tay FR. Final rinse optimization: influence of different agitation protocols. J Endod 2010;36(2):282-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.10.004
  24. Mayer BE, Peters OA, Barbakow F. Effects of rotary instruments and ultrasonic irrigation on debris and smear layer scores: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 2002;35(7):582-589. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00502.x
  25. Walmsley AD, Williams AR. Effects of constraint on the oscillatory pattern of endosonic files. J Endod 1989;15(5):189-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(89)80233-X
  26. Albrecht LJ, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Evaluation of apical debris removal using various sizes and tapers of ProFile GT files. J Endod 2004;30(6):425-428. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200406000-00012
  27. Sedgley CM, Nagel AC, Hall D, Applegate B. Influence of irrigant needle depth in removing bioluminescent bacteria inoculated into instrumented root canals using real-time imaging in vitro. Int Endod J 2005;38(2):97-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00906.x
  28. Jensen SA, Walker TL, Hutter JW, Nicoll BK. Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of passive sonic activation and passive ultrasonic activation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod 1999;25(11):735-738. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80120-4
  29. Walmsley AD. Ultrasound and root canal treatment: the need for scientific evaluation. Int Endod J 1987;20(3):105-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1987.tb00600.x
  30. Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Efficacy of three techniques in cleaning the apical portion of curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;79(4):492-496 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(05)80134-9
  31. Yoo YJ, Shin SJ, Baek SH. Review of root canal irrigant delivery techniques and devices. J Kor Acad Cons Dent 2011;36(3):180-187 https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2011.36.3.180