Farklı irrigasyon aktivasyon tekniklerinin kök kanal dezenfeksiyonuna etkisi

Abstract

Endodontik enfeksiyonların tekrarlamaması; kök kanallarında yer alan enfekte dokuların, tedavi sırasında dentin yüzeyinde ve/veya dentin kanalları içerisinde yerleşen smear tabakasının uzaklaştırılması, enfekte kök dentin dokusunun dezenfekte edilmesi ve mikrosızıntıyı engelleyen koronal üst yapının varlığına bağlıdır. Kök kanal irrigasyonu; enstrümantasyonu kolaylaştırmasının yanı sıra, mikroorganizmaları ve enfekte dentini uzaklaştırmada önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Konvansiyonel irrigasyon yöntemiyle, irrigasyon solüsyonunun iğne ucunun ortalama 1-2 mm ötesine iletilebilmesi, kök kanallarında ulaşılması zor bölgeler olan lateral ve aksesuar kanallar, istmus ve anastomozlarda kök kanal tedavisi sırasında etkin bir dezenfeksiyon yapmayı kısıtlar. Bu nedenle, irrigasyon solüsyonlarının temizleme etkinliğini arttırmak ve mikroorganizmaların tamamen uzaklaştırılmasını sağlamak için birçok aktivasyon cihazları kullanılmaktadır. Aktif irrigasyon; mekanik veya diğer enerji formları yoluyla irrigasyon solüsyonlarının kök kanal sisteminin karmaşık anatomik yapıya akışını sağlamak için bir yöntemin kullanılması olarak tanımlanabilir. Pasif ultrasonik irrigasyon, sonik ve multisonik sistemler, pozitif veya negatif basınç cihazları, lazerler, manuel dinamik aktivasyon yöntemleri evrensel olarak etkili kabul edilmektedir. Bu derlemenin amacı tek seansta yapılan kök kanal tedavisinde kullanılan irrigasyon aktivasyon yöntemlerinin etkinliğini karşılaştırmaktır.

Keywords

• Kök Kanal Dezenfeksiyonu
• İrrigasyon Aktivasyonu
• Endodontik Mikrobiyata

Effect of different irrigation activation techniques on root canal disinfection

Abstract

The prevention of recurrent endodontic infections depends on the removal of infected tissues in the root canals, the smear layer located on the dentin surface and/or within dentinal tubules during treatment, the disinfection of infected root dentin tissue and the presence of a coronal restoration that prevents microleakage. Root canal irrigation plays a crucial role not only in facilitating preparation but also in removing microorganisms and infected dentin. With conventional irrigation methods, the irrigation solution can only be delivered approximately 1-2 mm beyond the needle tip, limiting effective disinfection during root canal treatment in hard-to-reach areas such as lateral and accessory canals, isthmuses, and anastomoses. Therefore, various activation devices are utilized to enhance the cleaning efficacy of irrigation solutions and ensure the complete removal of microorganisms. Active irrigation is defined as the use of a method to facilitate the flow of irrigation solutions into the complex anatomical structure of the root canal system through mechanical or other energy forms. Passive ultrasonic irrigation, sonic and multisonic systems, positive or negative pressure devices, lasers, and manual dynamic activation techniques are universally considered effective. The purpose of this review is to compare the efficacy of irrigation activation methods used in single-visit root canal treatments.

Keywords

• Root Canal Disinfection
• Irrigation Activation
• Endodontic Microbiota

References

1. 1. Smith AJ. Pulpal responses to caries and dental repair. Caries Res. 2002;36(4):223-232.
2. 2. Sasaki H, Hirai K, M Martins C, Furusho H, Battaglino R, Hashimoto K. Interrelationship between periapical lesion and systemic metabolic disorders. Curr Pharm Des. 2016;22(15):2204-2215.
3. 3. Nair PNR. Pathogenesis of a apical periodontitis and the causes of endodontic failures. Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine. 2004;15(6):348-381.
4. 4. Shin JM, Luo T, Lee KH, et al. Deciphering endodontic microbial communities by next-generation sequencing. J Endod. 2018;44(7):1080-1087.
5. 5. Manoil D, Al‐Manei K, Belibasakis GN. A Systematic Review of the Root Canal Microbiota Associated with Apical Periodontitis: Lessons from Next‐Generation Sequencing. PROTEOMICS – Clin Appl. 2020;14(3):1900060.
6. 6. Siqueira Jr JF. Endodontic infections: concepts, paradigms, and perspectives. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology. 2002;94(3):281-293.
7. 7. Gomes BPF de A, Herrera DR. Etiologic role of root canal infection in apical periodontitis and its relationship with clinical symptomatology. Braz Oral Res. 2018;32(suppl 1):e69.
8. 8. Abusrewil S, Alshanta OA, Albashaireh K, et al. Detection, treatment and prevention of endodontic biofilm infections: what’s new in 2020? Crit Rev Microbiol. 2020;46(2):194-212.

9. 9. Almatroudi A. Biofilm resilience: molecular mechanisms driving antibiotic resistance in clinical contexts. Biology. 2025;14(2):165.
10. 10. Pereira RS, Rodrigues VAA, Furtado W, Gueiros S, Pereira GS, Avila-Campos MJ. Microbial analysis of root canal and periradicular lesion associated to teeth with endodontic failure. Anaerobe. 2017;48:12-18.
11. 11. Fisher K, Phillips C. The ecology, epidemiology and virulence of Enterococcus. Microbiology. 2009;155(6):1749-1757.
12. 12. Public Health England. Laboratory surveillance of Enterococcus spp. bacteraemia in England: 2020. Health Protection Report. 2020;15(17):1–15.
13. 13. Piezzi V, Gasser M, Atkinson A, et al. Increasing proportion of vancomycin resistance among enterococcal bacteraemias in Switzerland: a 6-year nation-wide surveillance, 2013 to 2018. Eurosurveillance. 2020;25(35).
14. 14. Thienngern P, Panichuttra A, Ratisoontorn C, et al. Efficacy of chitosan paste as intracanal medication against Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans biofilm compared with calcium hydroxide in an in vitro root canal infection model. BMC Oral Health. 16 Ağustos 2022;22(1):354.
15. 15. Mergoni G, Manfredi M, Bertani P, et al. Activity of two antimicrobial peptides against Enterococcus faecalis in a model of biofilm-mediated endodontic infection. Antibiotics. 2021;10(10):1220.
16. 16. Velázquez-Moreno S, González-Amaro AM, Aragón-Piña A, et al. Use of a cellulase from trichoderma reesei as an adjuvant for enterococcus faecalis biofilm disruption in combination with antibiotics as an alternative treatment in secondary endodontic infection. Pharmaceutics. 2023;15(3):1010.
17. 17. Rôças IN, Siqueira Jr JF, Santos KR. Association of Enterococcus faecalis with different forms of periradicular diseases. J Endod. 2004;30(5):315-320.
18. 18. Bilgin B. Kök kanal tedavisi yenilenen dişlerde kanal içi dezenfeksiyon yöntemlerinin enfekte kök kanallarındaki enterococcus faecalis ve candida albicans sayılarındaki azalmaya etkisinin PCR yöntemi ile incelenmesi. (Erişim Tarihi: 9 Aralık 2024). https://acikbilim.yok.gov.tr/handle/20.500.12812/596806
19. 19. Barbosa-Ribeiro M, De-Jesus-Soares A, Zaia AA, Ferraz CC, Almeida JF, Gomes BP. Quantification of lipoteichoic acid contents and cultivable bacteria at the different phases of the endodontic retreatment. J Endod. 2016;42(4):552-556.
20. 20. Molander A, Reit C, Dahlén G, Kvist T. Microbiological status of root‐filled teeth with apical periodontitis. Int Endod J. 1998;31(1):1-7.
21. 21. Moreno MF, Sarantinopoulos P, Tsakalidou E, De Vuyst L. The role and application of enterococci in food and health. Int J Food Microbiol. 2006;106(1):1-24.
22. 22. Saeedi B, Hällgren A, Jonasson J, Nilsson LE, Hanberger H, Isaksson B. Modified pulsed‐field gel electrophoresis protocol for typing of enterococci. Apmis. 2002;110(12):869-874.
23. 23. Nakajo K, Iwami Y, Komori R ve ark. The resistance to acidic and alkaline environments of endodontic pathogen Enterococcus faecalis. In: International Congress Series. Vol 1284. 2005:191-192.
24. 24. Medeiros AW, Pereira RI, Oliveira DV de, et al. Molecular detection of virulence factors among food and clinical Enterococcus faecalis strains in South Brazil. Braz J Microbiol. 2014;45:327-332.
25. 25. Francisco PA, Fagundes PI da G, Lemes-Junior JC, Lima AR, Passini MRZ, Gomes BP. Pathogenic potential of Enterococcus faecalis strains isolated from root canals after unsuccessful endodontic treatment. Clin Oral Investig. 2021:1-9. Epub 2021
26. 26. Sava IG, Heikens E, Huebner J. Pathogenesis and immunity in enterococcal infections. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010;16(6):533-540.
27. 27. Raad II, Hanna HA, Boktour M, et al. Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus faecium : Catheter Colonization, esp Gene, and Decreased Susceptibility to Antibiotics in Biofilm. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2005;49(12):5046-50.
28. 28. Upadhyaya GP, Lingadevaru UB, Lingegowda RK. Comparative study among clinical and commensal isolates of Enterococcus faecalis for presence of esp gene and biofilm production. The Journal of Infection in Developing Countries. 2011;5(05):365-9.
29. 29. Latasa C, Solano C, Penadés JR, Lasa I. Biofilm-associated proteins. C R Biol. 2006;329(11):849-857.
30. 30. Budzik JM, Schneewind O. Pili prove pertinent to enterococcal endocarditis. J Clin Invest. 2006;116(10):2582-2584.
31. 31. Qin X, Singh KV, Weinstock GM, Murray BE. Effects of Enterococcus faecalis fsr Genes on Production of Gelatinase and a Serine Protease and Virulence. Infect Immun. 2000;68(5):2579-2586.
32. 32. Rozdzinski E, Marre R, Susa M, Wirth R, Muscholl-Silberhorn A. Aggregation substance-mediated adherence of Enterococcus faecalis to immobilized extracellular matrix proteins. Microb Pathog. 2001;30(4):211-220.
33. 33. Linde A, Goldberg M. Dentinogenesis. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1993;4(5):679-728.
34. 34. Wicken AJ, Knox KW. Lipoteichoic Acids: A New Class of Bacterial Antigen: Membrane lipoteichoic acids can function as surface antigens of gram-positive bacteria. Science. 1975;187(4182):1161-1167.
35. 35. Zhao L, Chen J, Cheng L, ve ark. Effects of Enterococcus faecalis lipoteichoic acid on receptor activator of nuclear factor‐κ B ligand and osteoprotegerin expression in periodontal ligament fibroblasts. Int Endod J. 2014;47(2):163-172.
36. 36. Kayaoglu G, Ørstavik D. Virulence Factors of Enterococcus Faecalis: Relationship to Endodontic Disease. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2004;15(5):308-320.
37. 37. Park OJ, Han JY, Baik JE, ve ark. Lipoteichoic acid of Enterococcus faecalis induces the expression of chemokines via TLR2 and PAFR signaling pathways. J Leukoc Biol. 2013;94(6):1275-1284.
38. 38. Wang S, Liu KUN, Seneviratne CJ, et al. Lipoteichoic acid from an Enterococcus faecalis clinical strain promotes TNF-α expression through the NF-κB and p38 MAPK signaling pathways in differentiated THP-1 macrophages. Biomedical reports. 2015;3(5):697-702.
39. 39. Tominari T, Sanada A, Ichimaru R, et al. Gram-positive bacteria cell wall-derived lipoteichoic acid induces inflammatory alveolar bone loss through prostaglandin E production in osteoblasts. Scientific Reports. 2021;11(1):13353.
40. 40. Martinho FC, Gomes BP. Quantification of endotoxins and cultivable bacteria in root canal infection before and after chemomechanical preparation with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. J Endod. 2008;34(3):268-272.
41. 41. Schein B, Schilder H. Endotoxin content in endodontically involved teeth. J Endod. 2006;32(4):293-295.
42. 42. Silva LAB, Nelson-Filho P, Leonardo MR, Rossi MA, Pansani CA. Effect of calcium hydroxide on bacterial endotoxin in vivo. J Endod. 2002;28(2):94-98.
43. 43. Neves MA, Provenzano JC, Rôças IN, Siqueira Jr JF. Clinical antibacterial effectiveness of root canal preparation with reciprocating single-instrument or continuously rotating multi-instrument systems. J Endod. 2016;42(1):25-29.
44. 44. Herrera DR, Martinho FC, de‐Jesus‐Soares A, ve ark. Clinical efficacy of EDTA ultrasonic activation in the reduction of endotoxins and cultivable bacteria. Int Endod J. 2017;50(10):933-940.
45. 45. Gomes BP, Martinho FC, Vianna ME. Comparison of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite and 2% chlorhexidine gel on oral bacterial lipopolysaccharide reduction from primarily infected root canals. J Endod. 2009;35(10):1350-1353.
46. 46. Jacinto RC, Gomes BP, Shah HN, Ferraz CC, Zaia AA, Souza-Filho FJ. Quantification of endotoxins in necrotic root canals from symptomatic and asymptomatic teeth. J Med Microbiol. 2005;54(8):777-783.
47. 47. Walsh LJ, George R. Activation of alkaline irrigation fluids in endodontics. Materials. 2017;10(10):1214.
48. 48. Kore P, Jambagi N, Dhaded NS, Patil SA, Shankar M. Comparison of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Diode Laser, Ultrasonic Activated and Conventional Irrigation with 2.5% NaOCl during RCT: An Interventional Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021;22(6):669-673.
49. 49. Hepsenoglu YE, Ersahan S. Is XP ‐endo Finisher a better treatment option for its efficacy against intracanal bacteria for post‐treatment apical periodontitis cases than Endo Activator? Aust Endod J. 2023;49(S1):399-412.
50. 50. Gu L sha, 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.
51. 51. Siqueira Jr JF, Rôças IN. Optimising single‐visit disinfection with supplementary approaches: A quest for predictability. Aust Endod J. 2011;37(3):92-98.
52. 52. Aban Tiltay A. Farklı irrigasyon sistemlerinin kök kanalı dolgu materyalini uzaklaştırmadaki etkinliklerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi. Accessed March 24, 2025. https://nek.istanbul.edu.tr/ekos/TEZ/ET004010.pdf
53. 53. AkyüzEki̇m SN, Erdemi̇r A. Endodontide irrigasyon aktivasyon yöntemleri. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekim Fakültesi Derg. 2015;10(10).
54. 54. Weller RN, Brady JM, Bernier WE. Efficacy of ultrasonic cleaning. J Endod. 1980;6(9):740-743.
55. 55. Ali NT, El-Boghdadi RM, Ibrahim AM, Amin SAW. Clinical and microbiological effects of ultrasonically activated irrigation versus syringe irrigation during endodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Odontology. 2022;110(3):419-33.
56. 56. Chalub LO, Nunes GP, Strazzi-Sahyon HB, et al. Antimicrobial effectiveness of ultrasonic irrigation in root canal treatment: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Invest. 2023;27(4):1343-61.
57. 57. Josic U, Mazzitelli C, Maravic T, et al. Biofilm in endodontics: In vitro cultivation possibilities, sonic-, ultrasonic-and laser-assisted removal techniques and evaluation of the cleaning efficacy. Polymers. 2022;14(7):1334.
58. 58. Uysal O, Uysal BA, Öveçoğlu HS. Farklı İrrigasyon Aktivasyon Tekniklerinin Kalsiyum Hidroksit Uzaklaştırmadaki Etkinliğinin Taramalı Elektron Mikroskobu ile İncelenmesi. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Diş Hekim Derg. 2023;5(2):60-66.
59. 59. Swimberghe RCD, De Clercq A, De Moor RJG, Meire MA. Efficacy of sonically, ultrasonically and laser‐activated irrigation in removing a biofilm‐mimicking hydrogel from an isthmus model. Int Endod J. 2019;52(4):515-523.
60. 60. Hoedke D, Kaulika N, Dommisch H, Schlafer S, Shemesh H, Bitter K. Reduction of dual‐species biofilm after sonic‐ or ultrasonic‐activated irrigation protocols: A laboratory study. Int Endod J. 2021;54(12):2219-2228.
61. 61. Conde AJ, Estevez R, Loroño G, Valencia De Pablo Ó, Rossi‐Fedele G, Cisneros R. Effect of sonic and ultrasonic activation on organic tissue dissolution from simulated grooves in root canals using sodium hypochlorite and EDTA. Int Endod J. 2017;50(10):976-982.
62. 62. Boutsioukis C, Tzimpoulas N. Uncontrolled removal of dentin during in vitro ultrasonic irrigant activation. J Endod. 2016;42(2):289-293.
63. 63. Eggmann F, Vokac Y, Eick S, Neuhaus KW. Sonic irrigant activation for root canal disinfection: power modes matter! BMC Oral Health. Aralık 2020;20(1):102.
64. 64. Chu X, Feng S, Zhou W, et al. Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. Mart 2023;23(1):155.
65. 65. Boutsioukis C, Arias‐Moliz MT. Present status and future directions – irrigants and irrigation methods. Int Endodontic J. 2022;55(S3):588-612.
66. 66. Mohammadi Z. Laser applications in endodontics: an update review. International Dental Journal. 2009;35-46. Epub 2009 February 1.
67. 67. Lin S, Liu Q, Peng Q, et al. The ablation threshold of Er: YAG laser and Er, Cr: YSGG laser in dental dentin. Sci Res Essays. 2010;5(16):2128-35.
68. 68. DiVito E, Lloyd A. ER: YAG laser for 3-dimensional debridement of canal systems: use of photon-induced photoacoustic streaming. Dentistry today. 2012;31(11):122-4.
69. 69. Cı̇n, A. Kök kanal tedavisinde kullanılan modern irrigasyon tekniklerinin diş hekimleri tarafından bilinirliğinin değerlendirilmesi: bir anket çalışması. 2023.
70. 70. Hatipoğlu F, Arıcıoğlu B, Hatipoğlu Ö et al. Enterococcus Faecalis Biyofilmlerinin OrtadanKaldırılmasında Er: YAG Yöntemlerinin (PIPS-SWEEPS) Karşılaştırılması. Selcuk Dental Journal, 2021;8(3).
71. 71. Matsumoto H, Yoshimine Y, Akamine A. Visualization of irrigant flow and cavitation induced by Er: YAG laser within a root canal model. J Endod. 2011;37(6):839-843.
72. 72. Zhu X, Yin X, Chang JWW, Wang Y, Cheung GSP, Zhang C. Comparison of the Antibacterial Effect and Smear Layer Removal Using Photon-Initiated Photoacoustic Streaming Aided Irrigation Versus a Conventional Irrigation in Single-Rooted Canals: An In Vitro Study. Photomed Laser Surg. 2013;31(8):371-377.
73. 73. Özses Özkaya B. Lazerle aktive edilmiş farklı irrigasyon solüsyonlarının intrakanal enterecoccus faecalis biyofilmi üzerine antimikrobiyal etkinliklerinin in vitro incelenmesi. ( Erişim tarihi : 7 Ocak 2025) . https://acikbilim.yok.gov.tr/handle/20.500.12812/65896
74. 74. Strakas D, Franzen R, Kallis A, Vanweersch L, Gutknecht N. A comparative study of temperature elevation on human teeth root surfaces during Nd: YAG laser irradiation in root canals. Lasers Med Sci. 2013;28:1441-1444.
75. 75. Franzen R, Gutknecht N, Falken S, Heussen N, Meister J. Bactericidal effect of a Nd: YAG laser on Enterococcus faecalis at pulse durations of 15 and 25 ms in dentine depths of 500 and 1,000 μm. Lasers Med Sci. 2011;26:95-101.
76. 76. Moritz A, Jakolitsch S, Goharkhay K, ve ark. Morphologic changes correlating to different sensitivities of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus faecalis to Nd:YAG laser irradiation through dentin. Lasers Surg Med. 2000;26(3):250-261.
77. 77. Hibst R, Graser R, Udart M, Stock K. Mechanism of high‐power NIR laser bacteria inactivation. J Biophotonics. 2010;3(5-6):296-303.
78. 78. AkyuzEkim SN, Erdemir A. Comparison of different irrigation activation techniques on smear layer removal: An in vitro study. Microsc Res Tech. 2015;78(3):230-239.
79. 79. Ozbay Y, Erdemir A. Effect of several laser systems on removal of smear layer with a variety of irrigation solutions. Microsc Res Tech. 2018;81(10):1214-1222.
80. 80. Karova E, Dogandzhiyska V, Tsenova-Ilieva I, Raykovska M. Endodontic retreatment with D-Race NiTi instruments supplemented with XP-Endo Finisher R. EAS J Dent Oral Med. 2022;4:80-85.
81. 81. De-Deus G, Belladonna FG, de Siqueira Zuolo A, ve ark. Micro-CT comparison of XP-endo Finisher and passive ultrasonic irrigation as final irrigation protocols on the removal of accumulated hard-tissue debris from oval shaped-canals. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23:3087-3093.
82. 82. Usta SN, Doğuş E, Gündoğar M. Effectiveness of the GentleWave system in root canal disinfection: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health. 2026;26(1):296.
83. 83. de Araújo LP, de Araújo BCC, Immich F, et al. Clinical and laboratory insights into the GentleWave system: a scoping review. Journal of Endodontics. 2026;52(2):212–226.
84. 84. Kim KH, Lévesque C, Malkhassian G, et al. Efficacy of the GentleWave System in the removal of biofilm from the mesial roots of mandibular molars before and after minimal instrumentation: An ex vivo study. Int Endodontic J. 2024;57(7):922-32.
85. 85. Yashas DM, Basavanna RS, Kumar ND, Arya A, Jain P, Adhaulia I. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Teeth Instrumented by Self adjusting File, Protaper NEXT, and Hyflex EDM: An In vitro Study. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2025;16(2):111.
86. 86. Candeiro GT de M, Menezes AST de, Oliveira ACS de, et al. Successful nonsurgical treatment of type II dens invaginatus with 5 root canals using a self-adjusting file: a case report. Restor Dent Endod. 2023;48(2).