Sonic versus ultrasonic activation for the cleaning of the root canal after post space preparation: an in vitro study.
Abstract
Objective: Compare efficacy 3 intracanal cleaning protocols used previous to cementation of prosthetic bolts.Material and Methods: 40 anterior teeth which received endodontic treatment in hand, using the technique of lateral condensation. After two weeks, the unblocking of the anterior teeth was carried out removing the amount of gutta-percha that grants the necessary space to accommodate a post. Then, the teeth were randomly divided into groups; root surface treated with chlorhexidine (CHX) activated by ultrasound (US) (group I), chlorhexidine activated with sonic instrument (S) (group II), chlorhexidine without activation (group III) and chlorhexidine without treatment (group IV). All teeth were fractured longitudinally getting 2 sections. The middle third of the root canal was micro photographed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the contaminated surface was measured using detritus ImageJ 1.47. It was analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis-test using GraphPad Prism 5.01.Results: The median percentage of contaminated area of the Group I was 20.06%, Group II 19.3%, Group III 36.05% and Group IV 56.45%.Conclusion: There are significant differences among different intracanal cleaning protocols in the removal efficiency of detritus from the root canal, being the activated protocols the most effective ones.References
1. Mosharraf R, Baghaei Yazdi N. Comparative evaluation of effects of different surface treatment methods on bond strength between fiber post and composite core. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012; 4(2):103–8.
2. Chang H-S, Noh Y-S, Lee Y, Min K-S, Bae J-M. Push-out bond strengths of fiber-reinforced composite posts with various resin cements according to the root level. J Adv Prosthodont. 2013; 5(3):278–86.
3. Helvacıoğlu Kıvanç B, Deniz Arısu H, Uçtaşlı MB, Okay TC. The effect of different adhesive system applications on push-out bond strengths of glass fiber posts. J Adv Prosthodon. 2013; 5(3):305–11.
4. Do Prado M, Simão RA, Gomes BPFA. Evaluation of different irrigation protocols concerning the formation of chemical smear layer. Microsc Res Tech. 2013; 76(2):196–200.
5. Mao C-Y, Gu X-H. Effect of different irrigants on radicular dentin cleansing and resin tag formation after post space preparation. West China J Stomatol. 2010; 28(3):237–40.
6. Llena C, Forner L, Cambralla R, Lozano A. Effect of three different irrigation solutions applied by passive ultrasonic irrigation. Restor Dent Endod. 2015; 40(2):143–8.
7. Cecchin D, Farina AP, Giacomin M, Vidal C de MP, Carlini-Júnior B, Ferraz CCR. Influence of chlorhexidine application time on the bond strength between fiber posts and dentin. J Endod. 2014; 40(12):2045–8.
8. Vanderford BJ, Mawhinney DB, Trenholm RA, Zeigler-Holady JC, Snyder SA. Assessment of sample preservation techniques for pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and steroids in surface and drinking water. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2011; 399(6):2227–34.
9. Serafino C, Gallina G, Cumbo E, Ferrari M. Surface debris of canal walls after post space preparation in endodontically treated teeth: a scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 97(3):381–7.
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):674–8.
11. Ferreira RB, Alfredo E, Porto de Arruda M, Silva Sousa YTC, Sousa-Neto MD. Histological analysis of the cleaning capacity of nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation with ultrasonic irrigation in root canals. Aust Endod J. 2004; 30(2):56–8.
12. Niu LN, Luo XJ, Li GH, Bortoluzzi EA, Mao J, Chen JH, Gutmann JL, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Effects of different sonic activation protocols on debridement efficacy in teeth with single-rooted canals. J Dent. 2014; 42(8):1001–9.
13. Vansan LP, Pécora JD, Costa WF, Maia Campos G. Effects of various irrigating solutions on the cleaning of the root canal with ultrasonic instrumentation. Braz Dent J. 1990; 1(1):37–44.
14. Llena C, Cuesta C, Forner L, Mozo S, Segura J-J. The effect of passive ultrasonic activation of 2% chlorhexidine or 3% sodium hypochlorite in canal wall cleaning. J Clin Exp Dent. 2015; 7(1): 69–73.
15. 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(11):1456–60.
16. Lui J-N, Kuah H-G, Chen N-N. Effect of EDTA with and without surfactants or ultrasonics on removal of smear layer. J Endod. 2007; 33(4):472–5.
17. 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(9):1261–4.
18. Gu X-H, Mao C-Y, Kern M. Effect of different irrigation on smear layer removal after post space preparation. J Endod. 2009; 35(4):583–6.
19. Gu L, Kim JR, Ling J, Choi KK, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod. 2009; 35(6):791–804.
20. Castagna F, Rizzon P, da Rosa RA, Santini MF, Barreto MS, Duarte MA, Só MV. Effect of passive ultrassonic instrumentation as a final irrigation protocol on debris and smear layer removal--a SEM analysis. Microsc Res Tech. 2013; 76(5):496–502.
21. Scotti N, Scansetti M, Rota R, Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Pasqualini D, Berutti E. Active application of liquid etching agent improves adhesion of fibre posts to intraradicular dentine. Int Endod. 2013; 46(11):1039–45.
22. Lottanti S, Gautschi H, Sener B, Zehnder M. Effects of ethylenediaminetetraacetic, etidronic and peracetic acid irrigation on human root dentine and the smear layer. Int Endod J. 2009; 42(4):335–43.
23. De-Deus G, Reis C, Paciornik S. Critical appraisal of published smear layer-removal studies: methodological issues. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011; 112(4):531–43.
2. Chang H-S, Noh Y-S, Lee Y, Min K-S, Bae J-M. Push-out bond strengths of fiber-reinforced composite posts with various resin cements according to the root level. J Adv Prosthodont. 2013; 5(3):278–86.
3. Helvacıoğlu Kıvanç B, Deniz Arısu H, Uçtaşlı MB, Okay TC. The effect of different adhesive system applications on push-out bond strengths of glass fiber posts. J Adv Prosthodon. 2013; 5(3):305–11.
4. Do Prado M, Simão RA, Gomes BPFA. Evaluation of different irrigation protocols concerning the formation of chemical smear layer. Microsc Res Tech. 2013; 76(2):196–200.
5. Mao C-Y, Gu X-H. Effect of different irrigants on radicular dentin cleansing and resin tag formation after post space preparation. West China J Stomatol. 2010; 28(3):237–40.
6. Llena C, Forner L, Cambralla R, Lozano A. Effect of three different irrigation solutions applied by passive ultrasonic irrigation. Restor Dent Endod. 2015; 40(2):143–8.
7. Cecchin D, Farina AP, Giacomin M, Vidal C de MP, Carlini-Júnior B, Ferraz CCR. Influence of chlorhexidine application time on the bond strength between fiber posts and dentin. J Endod. 2014; 40(12):2045–8.
8. Vanderford BJ, Mawhinney DB, Trenholm RA, Zeigler-Holady JC, Snyder SA. Assessment of sample preservation techniques for pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and steroids in surface and drinking water. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2011; 399(6):2227–34.
9. Serafino C, Gallina G, Cumbo E, Ferrari M. Surface debris of canal walls after post space preparation in endodontically treated teeth: a scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 97(3):381–7.
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):674–8.
11. Ferreira RB, Alfredo E, Porto de Arruda M, Silva Sousa YTC, Sousa-Neto MD. Histological analysis of the cleaning capacity of nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation with ultrasonic irrigation in root canals. Aust Endod J. 2004; 30(2):56–8.
12. Niu LN, Luo XJ, Li GH, Bortoluzzi EA, Mao J, Chen JH, Gutmann JL, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Effects of different sonic activation protocols on debridement efficacy in teeth with single-rooted canals. J Dent. 2014; 42(8):1001–9.
13. Vansan LP, Pécora JD, Costa WF, Maia Campos G. Effects of various irrigating solutions on the cleaning of the root canal with ultrasonic instrumentation. Braz Dent J. 1990; 1(1):37–44.
14. Llena C, Cuesta C, Forner L, Mozo S, Segura J-J. The effect of passive ultrasonic activation of 2% chlorhexidine or 3% sodium hypochlorite in canal wall cleaning. J Clin Exp Dent. 2015; 7(1): 69–73.
15. 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(11):1456–60.
16. Lui J-N, Kuah H-G, Chen N-N. Effect of EDTA with and without surfactants or ultrasonics on removal of smear layer. J Endod. 2007; 33(4):472–5.
17. 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(9):1261–4.
18. Gu X-H, Mao C-Y, Kern M. Effect of different irrigation on smear layer removal after post space preparation. J Endod. 2009; 35(4):583–6.
19. Gu L, Kim JR, Ling J, Choi KK, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod. 2009; 35(6):791–804.
20. Castagna F, Rizzon P, da Rosa RA, Santini MF, Barreto MS, Duarte MA, Só MV. Effect of passive ultrassonic instrumentation as a final irrigation protocol on debris and smear layer removal--a SEM analysis. Microsc Res Tech. 2013; 76(5):496–502.
21. Scotti N, Scansetti M, Rota R, Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Pasqualini D, Berutti E. Active application of liquid etching agent improves adhesion of fibre posts to intraradicular dentine. Int Endod. 2013; 46(11):1039–45.
22. Lottanti S, Gautschi H, Sener B, Zehnder M. Effects of ethylenediaminetetraacetic, etidronic and peracetic acid irrigation on human root dentine and the smear layer. Int Endod J. 2009; 42(4):335–43.
23. De-Deus G, Reis C, Paciornik S. Critical appraisal of published smear layer-removal studies: methodological issues. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011; 112(4):531–43.
Published
2015-07-01
How to Cite
CARRASCO, René et al.
Sonic versus ultrasonic activation for the cleaning of the root canal after post space preparation: an in vitro study..
Journal of Oral Research, [S.l.], v. 4, n. 4, p. 255-262, july 2015.
ISSN 0719-2479.
Available at: <https://www.joralres.com/index.php/JOralRes/article/view/joralres.2015.050>. Date accessed: 30 apr. 2024.
doi: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2015.050.
Issue
Section
Articles
Keywords
Detritus; activated irrigation; sonic; ultrasonic; chlorhexidine.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. © 2024.
