Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 165
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE  
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 368-372
Ultrasonic versus sonic activation of the final irrigant in root canals instrumented with rotary/reciprocating files: An in-vitro scanning electron microscopy analysis


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, YMT Dental College and Hospital, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission22-Mar-2016
Date of Decision15-May-2016
Date of Acceptance12-Jun-2016
Date of Web Publication18-Jul-2016
 

   Abstract 

Aim: To compare the smear layer and debris removal in root canals instrumented with two different kinematic motions after ultrasonic and sonic irrigation activation.
Materials and Methods: Eighty freshly extracted teeth were selected for the study and randomly divided the samples into two groups (n = 40) for instrumentation with either rotary ProTaper NEXT (PTN) or reciprocating WaveOne (WO) file systems. These (n = 40) were further divided into two groups (n = 20) where the final irrigant was activated using either Ultrasonics (Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation; PUI) or Sonics (EndoActivator; EA). Group 1: PTN + EA; Group 2: PTN + PUI; Group 3: WO + EA; and Group 4: WO + PUI. During instrumentation, a total of 4 ml of 5.25% NaOCl was used for irrigation. The final irrigation protocol included NaOCl and Smear Clear Solution. The samples were processed by scanning electron microscopic examination for debris and smear layer scoring, and statistical analysis was done.
Results: The mean debris and smear layer score was less in the group instrumented by PTN with sonic activation of the irrigant.
Conclusion: A combination of PTN instrumentation with sonic irrigation activation by EA is more effective in debris and smear layer removal in the groups tested.

Keywords: EndoActivator; ProTaper NEXT; scanning electron microscopy; smear layer; WaveOne

How to cite this article:
Khalap ND, Kokate S, Hegde V. Ultrasonic versus sonic activation of the final irrigant in root canals instrumented with rotary/reciprocating files: An in-vitro scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Conserv Dent 2016;19:368-72

How to cite this URL:
Khalap ND, Kokate S, Hegde V. Ultrasonic versus sonic activation of the final irrigant in root canals instrumented with rotary/reciprocating files: An in-vitro scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2016 [cited 2019 Aug 18];19:368-72. Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2016/19/4/368/186451

   Introduction Top


The ultimate goal of endodontic therapy is complete debridement of the entire root canal system with efficient disinfection.[1] Shaping the canal walls creates debris and a resultant smear layer comprising organic and inorganic substances, including microorganisms and their by-products.[2] This debris and smear layer not only prevent the penetration of root canal irrigants into the dentinal tubules but also intracanal medicaments [3] and sealers [4] that fail to effect an entire sealing of the root canal system. Therefore, it is essential to use a chemomechanical system that results in leaving the canal walls with the least amount of debris and smear layer.[5]

Recently, new generation nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) instruments have been designed for better root canal instrumentation augering debris coronally.[6] The Wave One (Dentsply, Maillefer) NiTi single-file system is used in reciprocating motion. The counter-clockwise engaging angle is five times the clockwise disengaging angle. ProTaper NEXT (PTN; Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK) files are uniquely designed, such that the center of mass and center of rotation are offset.[7] These instruments are manufactured with M-Wire technology, which increases flexibility and resistance to cyclic fatigue.[8]

These files tend to create a circular bore preparation irrespective of the canal shape and fail to reach buccal/lingual recesses and irregularities such as isthmi and canal fins.[9] Such areas might harbor bacteria caused by the packed debris and result in persistent periradicular inflammation.

It has been reported in literature that various irrigation activation systems might result in producing cleaner radicular dentinal walls, increasing the bond strength of canal-filling materials.

Hence, this study was formulated to evaluate the debris and smear layer removal after instrumenting them with rotary/reciprocating files and activating the final irrigant with ultrasonics (PUI)/sonics (EndoActivator; EA).


   Materials and Methods Top


Human mandibular premolars freshly extracted (for orthodontic treatment) with a single straight canal and fully formed apices were selected, and confirmation of single canal was carried out by buccolingual and mesiodistal angulated radiographs. The samples were decoronated with a diamond disk under water to a length of 16 mm. Hand instrumentation was done until #25k-file. The samples were randomly divided into four groups (n = 20):

  • Group 1: PTN + EA
  • Group 2: PTN + PUI
  • Group 3: WO + EA
  • Group 4: WO + PUI.


Group 1 and 2: Instrumentation with Protaper NEXT

Specimens were instrumented by PTN files until full sequence X4 (40/.06). These files were used in outward brushing mode at 300 rpm/2.6 nm. About 3% of sodium hypochlorite and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) were used as an irrigant and lubricant alternatively between each file and recapitulation.

Group 3 and 4: Instrumentation with WaveOne

Specimens were instrumented by WO large files (40/.08) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) in pecking motion, using X Smart Plus endomotor (Dentsply-Maillefer). These files were used in outward brushing mode at 300 rpm/2.6 nm. Again 3% of sodium hypochlorite and EDTA were used as an irrigant and lubricant alternatively between each file and recapitulation.

Final irrigation protocol

After instrumentation, 2 ml of 5.25% NaOCl was used as a final irrigant for 1 min, followed by 1 ml Smear Clear solution for 1 min, followed by 2 ml of 5.25% NaOCl. Each irrigant solution was activated either sonically or ultrasonically.

Group 1 and 3: Final irrigant activated by sonics (EndoActivator)

The EA (Dentsply, Mallifier) sonic handpiece with a size #25/0.04 taper activator tip was passively inserted to within 2 mm of the working length and used in a pumping action to move the tip for 1 min in short, 2–3 mm vertical strokes.

Group 2 and 4: Final irrigant activated by ultrasonics (PUI)

An ultrasonic tip 20/.04 (Satellec, Acteon) was passively inserted into the canal 1 mm short of working length and driven by an ultrasonic device (Satellec, Acteon) with power set at 5 for 1 min. A final flush with 5 ml distilled water was done in all the groups and the canals were dried with paper points.

Microscopic evaluation

To facilitate splitting of the roots, two longitudinal grooves were made with a diamond disk on the buccal and lingual surfaces. The roots were then split into two halves with a chisel, and the half containing the most visible part of the apex was conserved and coded. The specimens were dried, mounted on metallic stubs, and examined under scanning electron microscopy. Photomicrographs from the approximate center of the coronal (10 mm to the apex), middle (6 mm to the apex), and apical (2 mm to the apex) thirds of each specimen were taken at ×500 for debris and ×1500 for smear layer evaluation.

The photographs were blindly evaluated by two observer's using Schäfer and Lohmann criteria.[10]

The cleanness of each canal was evaluated by means of a numeric evaluation scale as follows.

Debris score

Debris score (dentinal chips, pulp remnants, and particles loosely attached to the canal wall):

  1. Score 1: Clean canal wall, few debris particles
  2. Score 2: A few small agglomerations
  3. Score 3: Many agglomerations; <50% of the canal wall covered
  4. Score 4: More than 50% of the canal wall covered by debris
  5. Score 5: Canal wall completely covered by debris.


The SEM images depicting the debris scores are presented in [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Debris scores

Click here to view


Smear layer score

Smear layer score (dentin particles, remnants of vital or necrotic pulp tissue, bacterial components, and retained irrigant):

  1. Score 1: No smear layer, orifices of the dentinal tubules patent
  2. Score 2: Small amount of smear layer, some open dentinal tubules
  3. Score 3: Homogeneous smear layer along almost the entire canal wall, with very few open dentinal tubules
  4. Score 4: Entire root canal wall covered by a homogeneous smear layer, with no open dentinal tubules
  5. Score 5: A thick homogenous smear layer covering the entire canal wall. The SEM images depicting the smear layer scores are presented in [Figure 2].
Figure 2: Smear layer scores

Click here to view


Statistical analysis

Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U-tests were used for comparison of debris and smear layer scores. Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to make comparisons between the studied parameters in different canal regions. The significance level was set at P - 0.05.


   Results Top


Statistical analysis of debris and smear layer scores for the tested groups instrumented canal walls exhibited varying amounts of remaining debris and smear layer along their entire length. The mean and standard deviation values for debris and smear layer scores are presented in [Table 1].
Table 1: Statistical analysis of debris and smear layer scores for the tested groups

Click here to view


Debris scores

For the middle and apical regions and the total debris score, there were significant differences among groups. At the middle and apical regions, Group 4 showed the highest mean. There were no significant differences among Groups 1, 2, and 3; all showed lower mean scores. A comparison between root regions: Group 1 showed a lower mean score in the middle region than the apical region. In Group 2, there was no significant difference between the middle and apical regions; both showed lower mean scores. In Groups 3 and 4, the middle region had a higher mean, but the apical region showed the highest mean debris score.

Smear layer scores

For the middle and apical regions and the total smear layer score, there were significant differences among groups. At the middle and apical regions, Group 4 showed the highest mean. There were no significant differences among Groups 1, 2, and 3; all showed lower mean scores. A comparison between root regions; Group 1 showed a lower mean score in the middle region than the apical region. In Group 2, the apical region showed the higher mean score. In Group 3, the middle region had a lower mean score, but the apical region showed a higher mean score. In Group 4, the middle region had a higher mean score, but the apical region showed the highest smear layer mean score.


   Discussion Top


The aim of endodontic treatment is the elimination of bacteria and the prevention of reinfection. This is accomplished by effective mechanical instrumentation and the use of irrigants and intracanal disinfectants.[11] Greater success in canal debridement can be achieved with increased apical size preparations and higher taper instruments; hence, all the samples were prepared until apical size 40/.06.[12],[13]

In this study, the debris and smear layer were seen to increase from coronal to apical direction. This can be explained by the larger diameter of dentinal tubules in coronal regions exposed to increased volume of irrigants, and thus making debris and smear layer removal easier.[11],[14]

Regardless of the final irrigation regimen used, the canal walls were cleaner in specimens prepared with PTN than those prepared with the WO system. This was attributed to the continuous forward motion of the rotary file which enabled constant exit of debris up the flute of the file. However, each backward motion of the reciprocating file might provide the opportunity for debris to accumulate in isthmus areas. Moreover, the reciprocating motion of the file might not allow the blade to cut as cleanly into the dentine, but push debris into recesses and isthmuses, resulting in a sort of burnishing effect.[15],[16] This result is comparable to the results of other studies, showing that the reciprocating motion induces greater debris accumulation.[5],[15]

It is also worth noting that the rotary group was irrigated more frequently, although the same volume of irrigant was used in both groups. With the single-file system, greater amounts of debris were packed laterally in isthmuses and protrusions.[15],[17],[18]

A file with an offset cross-section design, that is, the PTN affords more cross-sectional space for enhanced cutting, loading, and augering debris out of a canal. It decreases the probability of laterally compacting debris and blocking root canal system anatomy.[7],[19] To improve cleanliness, irrigants must be in contact with the root canal. The conventional needle irrigation technique delivers solutions no more than 0–1.1 mm beyond the needle tip.[2],[20] This is insufficient for complete cleaning of the intricate anatomy of the root canal system. A vapor lock, resulting in trapped air in the apical third of root canals, hinders the exchange of irrigants, and affects their debridement efficacy.[21]

Agitation with sonic and ultrasonic systems showed greater effectiveness in debris and smear layer removal.[22] PUI creates acoustic microstreaming which produces sufficient shear stresses to dislodge debris from instrumented canals. Along the length of an activated ultrasonic file, it has multiple nodes and antinodes.[23] Hence, PUI has been showed effective in smear layer removal.[21],[24] However, it also creates the undesirable dampening effect of amplitude of its characteristic nodes and antinodes pattern, especially when the instrument touched the lateral walls of a shaped canal. This may be the reason in our study; PUI was less effective in smear layer removal than EA in the apical third. Sonic activation operated with one single positive and negative node. The movement of the vibratory sonic instrument was not influenced by lateral wall contact.[25] Similar results were also seen in other studies, showing that sonic irrigation is superior to ultrasonic irrigation activation [1],[2],[22] while in another study,[26] no significant difference was found among the two.


   Conclusion Top


Complete cleanliness was not achieved in any of the groups. Based on the results, using the EA in canals prepared with PTN produced the cleanest canal walls. Results of the PTN system were superior to those of the WO system.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Klyn SL, Kirkpatrick TC, Rutledge RE.In vitro comparisons of debris removal of the EndoActivator system, the F file, ultrasonic irrigation, and NaOCl irrigation alone after hand-rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars. J Endod 2010;36:1367-71.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Mancini M, Cerroni L. Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, EndoVac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): Field emission scanning electron microscopic eval uation in anin vitro study. J Endod 2013;39:1456-60.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Orstavik D, Haapasalo M. Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and dressings of experimentally infected dentinal tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990;6:142-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
White RR, Goldman M, Lin PS. The influence of the smeared layer upon dentinal tubule penetration by endodontic filling materials. Part II. J Endod 1987;13:369-74.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Dietrich MA, Kirkpatrick TC, Yaccino JM.In vitro canal and isthmus debris removal of the self-adjusting file, K3, and WaveOne files in the mesial root of human mandibular molars. J Endod 2012;38:1140-4.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Kim HC, Lee MH, Yum J, Versluis A, Lee CJ, Kim BM. Potential relationship between design of nickel-titanium rotary instruments and vertical root fracture. J Endod 2010;36:1195-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, West JD. The shaping movement: Fifth-generation technology. Dent Today 2013;32:96-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Kansal R, Rajput A, Talwar S, Roongta R, Verma M. Assessment of dentinal damage during canal preparation using reciprocating and rotary files. J Endod 2014;40:1443-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Metzger Z. The self-adjusting file (SAF) system: An evidence-based update. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:401-19.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
10.
Schäfer E, Lohmann D. Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium FlexMaster instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile – Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and instrumentation results in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2002;35:514-21.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Kamel WH, Kataia EM\. Comparison of the efficacy of smear clear with and with out 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;40:446-50.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Rödig T, Döllmann S, Konietschke F, Drebenstedt S, Hülsmann M. Effectiveness of different irrigant agitation techniques on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: A scanning electron microscopy study. J Endod 2010;36:1983-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Salman MI, Baumann MA, Hellmich M, Roggendorf MJ, Termaat S. SEM evaluation of root canal debridement with Sonicare CanalBrush irrigation. Int Endod J 2010;43:363-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Yang G, Wu H, Zheng Y, Zhang H, Li H, Zhou X. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of debris and smear layer remaining following use of ProTaper and Hero Shaper instruments in combination with NaOCl and EDTA irrigation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:e63-71.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Robinson JP, Lumley PJ, Cooper PR. Reciprocating root canal technique induces greater debris accumulation than a continuous rotary technique assessed by 3-dimensional micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2013;39:1067-70.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Jeon IS, Spångberg 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;96:601-7.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Qian W, Gao Y. Irrigation in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54:291-312.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Nair PN, Henry S, Cano V, Vera J. Microbial status of apical root canal system of human mandibular first molars with primary apical periodontitis after one-visit endodontic treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99:231-52.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Pawar AM, Pawar SM, Pawar MG, Kokate SR. Fracture resistance of teeth instrumented by the Self-Adjusting File, ProTaper NEXT and WaveOne. J Pierre Fauchard Acad (India Section) 2014;28:83-7.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
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;38:445-8.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
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;36:745-50.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Khaord P, Amin A, Shah MB, Uthappa R, Raj N, Kachalia T, et al. Effectiveness of different irrigation techniques on smear layer removal in apical thirds of mesial root canals of permanent mandibular first molar: A scanning electron microscopic study. J Conserv Dent 2015;18:321-6.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
23.
Plotino G, Pameijer CH, Grande NM, Somma F. Ultrasonics in endodontics: A review of the literature. J Endod 2007;33:81-95.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
de Gregorio C, Estevez R, Cisneros R, Paranjpe A, Cohenca N. Efficacy of different irrigation and activation systems on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into simulated lateral canals and up to working length: Anin vitro study. J Endod 2010;36:1216-21.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Singh N, Chandra A, Tikku AP, Verma P. A comparative evaluation of different irrigation activation systems on smear layer removal from root canal: Anin vitro scanning electron microscope study. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:159-63.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
26.
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;25:735-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Neha Deepak Khalap
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, YMT Dental College and Hospital, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.186451

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2581    
    Printed38    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded270    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal