Li-na Niu1, Xiao-juan Luo2, Guo-hua Li3, Eduardo A Bortoluzzi4, Jing Mao2, Ji-hua Chen5, James L Gutmann6, David H Pashley7, Franklin R Tay8. 1. State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China. 2. Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. 3. Department of Stomatology, Fuzhou Dongfang Hospital, Fuzhou, China. 4. Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil. 5. State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Stomatology, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China. Electronic address: jhchen@fmmu.edu.cn. 6. Texas A&M University Baylor College of Dentistry, Dallas, TX, USA. 7. Department of Oral Biology, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, GA, USA. 8. Department of Endodontics, Georgia Regents University, Augusta, GA, USA. Electronic address: ftay@gru.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The effects of different EndoActivator® (EA) sonic activation protocols on root canal debridement efficacy were examined. METHODS: Root canals in 48 single-rooted teeth were instrumented, irrigated initially with NaOCl and divided into 6 groups (N=8) based on the application time of QMix (antimicrobial calcium-chelating irrigant), and the time and sequence of EA irrigant activation - Positive Control: 90s QMix; Negative Control: 90s saline; Group 1A: 15s QMix+15s QMix with EA-activation; Group 1B: 30s QMix+30s of QMix with EA-activation; Group 2A: 15s QMix with EA-activation+15s QMix; Group 2B: 30s QMix with EA-activation+30s QMix. Split roots were examined with scanning electron microscopy for assignment of smear and debris scores in locations along the coronal, middle and apical thirds of the canals. The overall cleanliness of pooled canal locations in the Positive Control and the 4 experimental groups were compared with chi-square tests. RESULTS: Significant differences were detected among the 5 groups (P<0.001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that the overall canal cleanliness was in the order (from best to worst): 1B=2B>2A>1A>Positive Control. Completely clean canals could not be achieved due to the absence of continuous irrigant flow for EA to clear intraradicular debris. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the sonic activation sequence, irrigant activation for 30s during a 60-s period of QMix application appears to maximise the smear layer and debris removal potential of the EndoActivator® system. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Sonic activation of root canal irrigants produces cleaner root canals and reduces the time required for final delivery of a canal wall smear later-removing irrigant when compared to the use of needle irrigation alone. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
OBJECTIVES: The effects of different EndoActivator® (EA) sonic activation protocols on root canal debridement efficacy were examined. METHODS: Root canals in 48 single-rooted teeth were instrumented, irrigated initially with NaOCl and divided into 6 groups (N=8) based on the application time of QMix (antimicrobial calcium-chelating irrigant), and the time and sequence of EA irrigant activation - Positive Control: 90s QMix; Negative Control: 90s saline; Group 1A: 15s QMix+15s QMix with EA-activation; Group 1B: 30s QMix+30s of QMix with EA-activation; Group 2A: 15s QMix with EA-activation+15s QMix; Group 2B: 30s QMix with EA-activation+30s QMix. Split roots were examined with scanning electron microscopy for assignment of smear and debris scores in locations along the coronal, middle and apical thirds of the canals. The overall cleanliness of pooled canal locations in the Positive Control and the 4 experimental groups were compared with chi-square tests. RESULTS: Significant differences were detected among the 5 groups (P<0.001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons indicated that the overall canal cleanliness was in the order (from best to worst): 1B=2B>2A>1A>Positive Control. Completely clean canals could not be achieved due to the absence of continuous irrigant flow for EA to clear intraradicular debris. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the sonic activation sequence, irrigant activation for 30s during a 60-s period of QMix application appears to maximise the smear layer and debris removal potential of the EndoActivator® system. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Sonic activation of root canal irrigants produces cleaner root canals and reduces the time required for final delivery of a canal wall smear later-removing irrigant when compared to the use of needle irrigation alone. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cleanliness; Debris; Irrigants; Root canal; Smear layer; Sonic activation
Authors: Lin Dai; Khaled Khechen; Sara Khan; Brian Gillen; Bethany A Loushine; Courtney E Wimmer; James L Gutmann; David Pashley; Franklin R Tay Journal: J Endod Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Franklin R Tay; Li-Sha Gu; G John Schoeffel; Courtney Wimmer; Lisiane Susin; Kai Zhang; Senthil N Arun; Jongryul Kim; Stephen W Looney; David H Pashley Journal: J Endod Date: 2010-02-06 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Margaret Soo Yee Chia; Abhishek Parolia; Benjamin Syek Hur Lim; Jayakumar Jayaraman; Isabel Cristina Celerino de Moraes Porto Journal: Restor Dent Endod Date: 2020-05-21