The Evaluation Of The Effect Of Different Irrigation Protocols With Sonic System Activation On Smear Layer With Scanning Electron Microscope

Abstract

Aim:The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different irrigation protocols on removing the smear layer from root canals. Materials and Methods: 80 human lower molar teeth were used in the study. The distal roots of teeth were removed from crowns over 1mm of cementoenamel junction. Following the detection of working length, root canal preparation were performed by using Reciproc system. The samples were divided into 4 groups. 20 randomly selected human lower molar teeth were used in each group. In the first group, the irrigation combined with the solutions of 5% of sodium hypochlorite and 17% of etilen diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) were made and no activation applied. In the second group, the irrigation combined with the solutions of 2% of chlorhexidine gluconate and 17% of EDTA were made and no activation applied. In the third group, the irrigation combined with the solutions of 2% of chlorhexidine gluconate and 17% of EDTA were made and the activation applied with sonic system. And in the fourth group, the irrigation combined with the solutions of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5% EDTA were made and the activation applied with sonic system. Then, the grooves in buccolingual and longitudinal directions were opened on teeth, and the samples were divided vertically. The samples obtained were analysed under scanning electron microscope (SEM), and the effect of the sonic system activation in different irrigation protocols on the elimination of smear layer were evaluated. Results: These were evaluated statistically with the Kruskal Wallis one-way analysis of variance. Only in the middle region of the Group 3 were seen statistical significant compared to others. Conclusion: When activities of different irrigation protocols were evaluated, sonic system activation was observed more efficient to remove the smear layer in the root canals. Also with syringe method, it was not observed any differences between the combinations of CHX-EDTA anda NaOCl-EDTA in the removal of smear layer.

Keywords

• sodyum hypoclorid
• chlorhexidine
• sodium hypochlorite

Farklı İrrigasyon Protokollerinin Sonik Sistem Aktivasyonuyla Smear Tabakasına Etkisinin Taramalı Elektron Mikroskobunda (SEM) Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı irrigasyon protokollerinin kök kanallarından smear tabakasını uzaklaştırmaya etkisini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Araştırmada 80 adet insan alt molar dişi kullanılmıştır. Tüm dişlerin distal kökleri mine sement sınırının 1 mm üzerinden kronlarından uzaklaştırılmıştır. Çalışma boyu tespitinin ardından Reciproc sistemi kullanılarak kök kanal preparasyonu yapılmıştır. Örnekler 4 ana gruba ayrılmıştır. Her bir grupta rastgele seçilmiş 20 adet insan alt molar dişi kullanılmıştır. 1. grupta örneklere %5'lik sodyum hipoklorit ve %17'lik etilen diamin tetra asetikasit (EDTA) solüsyonları ile kombine irrigasyon yapılmış herhangi bir aktivasyon uygulanmamıştır. 2. grupta %2'lik klorheksidin glukonat (CHX) ve %17'lik EDTA solüsyonları ile kombine irrigasyon yapılmış herhangi bir aktivasyon uygulanmamıştır. 3. Grupta %2'lik klorheksidin glukonat ile %17'lik EDTA solüsyonları ile kombine irrigasyon yapılmış ve sonik sistemle aktivasyon uygulanmıştır. 4. grupta %2'lik klorheksidin glukonat ve %5'lik EDTA solüsyonları ile kombine irrigasyon yapılmış ve sonik sistemle aktivasyon uygulanmıştır. Daha sonra dişlere bukkolingual ve longitudinal yönde oluklar açılmış ve örnekler vertikal olarak ikiye ayrılmıştır. Elde edilen örnekler taramalı elektron mikroskobunda (SEM) incelenmiş ve sonik sistem aktivasyonunun farklı irrigasyon protokollerinde smear tabakası eliminasyonuna etkisi değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Grupların istatistiksel olarak karşılaştırılması Kruskal Wallis Tek Yönlü Varyans Analizi ile yapılmıştır. Tüm bu karşılaştırmalar sonucunda sadece 3. Grup orta bölge diğerlerine göre anlamlı çıkmıştır (p< 0.05). Sonuç: Farklı irrigasyon protokollerinin kök kanallarında smear tabakasını uzaklaştırma etkinlikleri incelendiğinde sonik sistem aktivasyonu ile yıkama işlemi smear tabakasını uzaklaştırmada daha etkili görülmüştür.

Keywords

• Smear tabakası
• klorheksidin
• sodyum hipoklorit

References

1. 1.Plotino G, Colangeli M, Özyürek T, DeDeus G, Panzetta C, Castagnola R, et al. Evaluation of smear layer and debris removal by stepwise intraoperative activation (SIA) of sodium hypochlorite. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2021;25(1):237-45.
2. 2.Sabet NE, Lutfy RA. Ultrastructural morphologic evaluation of root canal walls prepared by two rotary nickel-titanium systems: a comparative study. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2008;106(3):e59-e66.
3. 3.Schäfer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel–titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. International endodontic journal. 2004;37(4):229-38.
4. 4.Javaheri HH, Javaheri GH. A comparison of three Ni-Ti rotary instruments in apical transportation. Journal of endodontics. 2007;33(3):284-6.
5. 5.Mohammadi Z, Shalavi S, Yaripour S, Kinoshita J-I, Manabe A, Kobayashi M, et al. Smear layer removing ability of root canal irrigation solutions: a review. Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2019;20(3):395-402.
6. 6.Foschi F, Nucci C, Montebugnoli L, Marchionni S, Breschi L, Malagnino V, et al. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. International Endodontic Journal. 2004;37(12):832-9.
7. 7.Violich D, Chandler N. The smear layer in endodontics–a review. International endodontic journal. 2010;43(1):2-15.
8. 8.Bayırlı G.: Pulpa patolojisi ve tedavileri. İÜ Basımevi ve Film Merkezi, İstanbul. 1991.

9. 9.Stock CJ, Gulabivala K, Goodman JR, Walker RT. Color atlas and text of endodontics: Mosby; 1995.
10. 10.Çapar İD, Ari Aydinbelge H. Effectiveness of various irrigation activation protocols and the self‐adjusting file system on smear layer and debris removal. Scanning: The Journal of Scanning Microscopies. 2014;36(6):640-7.
11. 11.Brito PR, Souza LC, de Oliveira JCM, Alves FR, De-Deus G, Lopes HP, et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of three irrigation techniques in reducing intracanal Enterococcus faecalis populations: an in vitro study. Journal of endodontics. 2009;35(10):1422-7.
12. 12.Kuah H-G, Lui J-N, Tseng PS, Chen N-N. The effect of EDTA with and without ultrasonics on removal of the smear layer. Journal of endodontics. 2009;35(3):393-6.
13. 13.Hülsmann M, Rümmelin C, Schäfers F. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative SEM investigation. Journal of endodontics. 1997;23(5):301-6.
14. 14.BYSTRÖM A, SUNDQVIST G. Bacteriologic evaluation of the efficacy of mechanical root canal instrumentation in endodontic therapy. European Journal of Oral Sciences. 1981;89(4):321-8.
15. 15.Torabinejad M, Handysides R, Khademi AA, Bakland LK. Clinical implications of the smear layer in endodontics: a review. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2002;94(6):658-66.
16. 16.Pérez-Heredia M, Ferrer-Luque C. Gon-34. zález-Rodriguez M.: The Effectiveness of Different Acid Irrigating Solutions in Root Canal Clearing Alter Hand and Rotary Instrumentation. J Endod. 2006;32(10):993-7.
17. 17.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. Journal of endodontics. 2009;35(6):900-3.
18. 18.Serper A, Calt S, Dogan AL, Guc D, Özçgelik B, Kuraner T. Comparison of the cytotoxic effects and smear layer removing capacity of oxidativepotential water, NaOCl and EDTA. Journal of oral science. 2001;43(4):233-8.
19. 19.Stamos DE, Sadeghi EM, Haasch GC, Gerstein H. An in vitro comparison study to quantitate the debridement ability of hand, sonic, and ultrasonic instrumentation. Journal of endodontics. 1987;13(9):434-40.
20. 20.Orlowski NB, Schimdt TF, da Silveira Teixeira C, Garcia LdFR, Savaris JM, Tay FR, et al. Smear Layer Removal Using Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation and Different Concentrations of Sodium Hypochlorite. Journal of Endodontics. 2020;46(11):1738-44.
21. 21.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. Journal of endodontics. 2010;36(12):1983-7.
22. 22.Caron G, Nham K, Bronnec F, Machtou P. Effectiveness of different final irrigant activation protocols on smear layer removal in curved canals. Journal of endodontics. 2010;36(8):1361-6.
23. 23.Charlie K, Kuttappa M, George L, Manoj K, Joseph B, John NK. A scanning electron microscope evaluation of smear layer removal and antimicrobial action of mixture of tetracycline, acid and detergent, sodium hypochlorite, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, and chlorhexidine gluconate: an in vitro study. Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. 2018;8(1):62.