Manuele Mancini1, Loredana Cerroni2, Lorenzo Iorio2, Lorenzo Dall'Asta2, Luigi Cianconi2,3. 1. Department of Translational Medicine and Clinical Science, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy. manuele.mancini@uniroma2.it. 2. Department of Translational Medicine and Clinical Science, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Via Montpellier 1, 00133, Rome, Italy. 3. Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, University of Rome "Tor Vergata", Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was to compare the efficacy of EndoActivator, EndoVac, PUI, and LAI methods in removing the smear layer from root canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty single-rooted mandibular premolars were decoronated to a standardized length of 15 mm. Specimens were shaped to ProTaper F4 (Dentsply Maillefer) and irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl at 37 °C. Teeth were divided into six groups (two control groups [n = 10] and four test groups [n = 15]) according to the final irrigation activation/delivering technique (sonic irrigation [EndoActivator], passive ultrasonic irrigation [PUI], negative apical pressure [EndoVac], and laser activated irrigation [LAI]). Root canals were then split longitudinally and observed with field emission scanning electron microscopy to evaluate the presence of smear layer at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. Scores were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The EndoActivator was significantly more efficient than PUI, LAI, and control groups in removing the smear layer at 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. The EndoVac System removed statistically significantly more smear layer than all groups at 1 mm from the apex. At 5 mm from the apex, EndoActivator and EndoVac removed more smear layer than LAI and control groups. At 5 and 8 mm from the apex, PUI and EndoVac did not differ statistically, but both performed statistically better than the control groups. CONCLUSION: In our study, none of the activation/delivery systems completely removed the smear layer from the root canal walls; nevertheless, EV and EA showed, respectively, statistically significant better results at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm and 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex.
OBJECTIVES: This study was to compare the efficacy of EndoActivator, EndoVac, PUI, and LAI methods in removing the smear layer from root canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty single-rooted mandibular premolars were decoronated to a standardized length of 15 mm. Specimens were shaped to ProTaper F4 (Dentsply Maillefer) and irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl at 37 °C. Teeth were divided into six groups (two control groups [n = 10] and four test groups [n = 15]) according to the final irrigation activation/delivering technique (sonic irrigation [EndoActivator], passive ultrasonic irrigation [PUI], negative apical pressure [EndoVac], and laser activated irrigation [LAI]). Root canals were then split longitudinally and observed with field emission scanning electron microscopy to evaluate the presence of smear layer at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. Scores were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: The EndoActivator was significantly more efficient than PUI, LAI, and control groups in removing the smear layer at 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. The EndoVac System removed statistically significantly more smear layer than all groups at 1 mm from the apex. At 5 mm from the apex, EndoActivator and EndoVac removed more smear layer than LAI and control groups. At 5 and 8 mm from the apex, PUI and EndoVac did not differ statistically, but both performed statistically better than the control groups. CONCLUSION: In our study, none of the activation/delivery systems completely removed the smear layer from the root canal walls; nevertheless, EV and EA showed, respectively, statistically significant better results at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm and 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex.
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