Cargando…

FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal from conservatively shaped canals: laser activated irrigation (PIPS and SWEEPS) compared to sonic and passive ultrasonic activation—an ex vivo study

BACKGROUND: Irrigation of the pulp space is a mandatory step to get rid of all its organic and inorganic content. Activation of the irrigants play a key role in the era of minimally invasive endodontics. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of different irrigants activation methods...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mancini, Manuele, Cerroni, Loredana, Palopoli, Pietro, Olivi, Giovanni, Olivi, Matteo, Buoni, Cristiano, Cianconi, Luigi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7901090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33618701
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01427-0
_version_ 1783654333478338560
author Mancini, Manuele
Cerroni, Loredana
Palopoli, Pietro
Olivi, Giovanni
Olivi, Matteo
Buoni, Cristiano
Cianconi, Luigi
author_facet Mancini, Manuele
Cerroni, Loredana
Palopoli, Pietro
Olivi, Giovanni
Olivi, Matteo
Buoni, Cristiano
Cianconi, Luigi
author_sort Mancini, Manuele
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Irrigation of the pulp space is a mandatory step to get rid of all its organic and inorganic content. Activation of the irrigants play a key role in the era of minimally invasive endodontics. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of different irrigants activation methods in removing the smear layer at 1, 3, 5 and 8 mm from the apex from conservatively shaped canals. METHODS: Eighty-five human mandibular premolars were selected. Specimens were shaped to TruShape 25/.06 and divided into 5 groups (1 control and 4 test groups) according to the final activation technique (EndoActivator, EA), Ultrasonic (EndoUltra, PUI) and Laser (PIPS and SWEEPS). EDTA (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) followed by NaOCl (Sodium Hypochlorite) and again EDTA were activated for each test group. Specimens were then split longitudinally and observed by Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM). Blinded evaluation of the presence of smear layer was performed at 1000X magnification, according to a 5-score index system. Comparison between groups were analysed statistically using the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric analysis of variance. Bonferroni multiple comparison tests were used. RESULTS: At 1 mm only PIPS and SWEEPS performed better than the control group. At 3, 5 and 8 mm from the apex, every activation technique showed statistically significant reduction of smear layer when compared to the control group. PIPS and SWEEPS obtained better cleanliness result compared to EA, while only PIPS was superior to PUI in terms of cleanliness. CONCLUSIONS: PIPS and SWEEPS showed the best results in conservative canal preparations. Nowadays, contemporary rotary instruments allow fast and minimally invasive shaping of the endodontic space. In this scenario irrigants’ activation may be regarded as a mandatory step to a favourable clinical outcome.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7901090
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79010902021-02-23 FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal from conservatively shaped canals: laser activated irrigation (PIPS and SWEEPS) compared to sonic and passive ultrasonic activation—an ex vivo study Mancini, Manuele Cerroni, Loredana Palopoli, Pietro Olivi, Giovanni Olivi, Matteo Buoni, Cristiano Cianconi, Luigi BMC Oral Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Irrigation of the pulp space is a mandatory step to get rid of all its organic and inorganic content. Activation of the irrigants play a key role in the era of minimally invasive endodontics. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of different irrigants activation methods in removing the smear layer at 1, 3, 5 and 8 mm from the apex from conservatively shaped canals. METHODS: Eighty-five human mandibular premolars were selected. Specimens were shaped to TruShape 25/.06 and divided into 5 groups (1 control and 4 test groups) according to the final activation technique (EndoActivator, EA), Ultrasonic (EndoUltra, PUI) and Laser (PIPS and SWEEPS). EDTA (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) followed by NaOCl (Sodium Hypochlorite) and again EDTA were activated for each test group. Specimens were then split longitudinally and observed by Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM). Blinded evaluation of the presence of smear layer was performed at 1000X magnification, according to a 5-score index system. Comparison between groups were analysed statistically using the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric analysis of variance. Bonferroni multiple comparison tests were used. RESULTS: At 1 mm only PIPS and SWEEPS performed better than the control group. At 3, 5 and 8 mm from the apex, every activation technique showed statistically significant reduction of smear layer when compared to the control group. PIPS and SWEEPS obtained better cleanliness result compared to EA, while only PIPS was superior to PUI in terms of cleanliness. CONCLUSIONS: PIPS and SWEEPS showed the best results in conservative canal preparations. Nowadays, contemporary rotary instruments allow fast and minimally invasive shaping of the endodontic space. In this scenario irrigants’ activation may be regarded as a mandatory step to a favourable clinical outcome. BioMed Central 2021-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7901090/ /pubmed/33618701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01427-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Mancini, Manuele
Cerroni, Loredana
Palopoli, Pietro
Olivi, Giovanni
Olivi, Matteo
Buoni, Cristiano
Cianconi, Luigi
FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal from conservatively shaped canals: laser activated irrigation (PIPS and SWEEPS) compared to sonic and passive ultrasonic activation—an ex vivo study
title FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal from conservatively shaped canals: laser activated irrigation (PIPS and SWEEPS) compared to sonic and passive ultrasonic activation—an ex vivo study
title_full FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal from conservatively shaped canals: laser activated irrigation (PIPS and SWEEPS) compared to sonic and passive ultrasonic activation—an ex vivo study
title_fullStr FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal from conservatively shaped canals: laser activated irrigation (PIPS and SWEEPS) compared to sonic and passive ultrasonic activation—an ex vivo study
title_full_unstemmed FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal from conservatively shaped canals: laser activated irrigation (PIPS and SWEEPS) compared to sonic and passive ultrasonic activation—an ex vivo study
title_short FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal from conservatively shaped canals: laser activated irrigation (PIPS and SWEEPS) compared to sonic and passive ultrasonic activation—an ex vivo study
title_sort fesem evaluation of smear layer removal from conservatively shaped canals: laser activated irrigation (pips and sweeps) compared to sonic and passive ultrasonic activation—an ex vivo study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7901090/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33618701
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01427-0
work_keys_str_mv AT mancinimanuele fesemevaluationofsmearlayerremovalfromconservativelyshapedcanalslaseractivatedirrigationpipsandsweepscomparedtosonicandpassiveultrasonicactivationanexvivostudy
AT cerroniloredana fesemevaluationofsmearlayerremovalfromconservativelyshapedcanalslaseractivatedirrigationpipsandsweepscomparedtosonicandpassiveultrasonicactivationanexvivostudy
AT palopolipietro fesemevaluationofsmearlayerremovalfromconservativelyshapedcanalslaseractivatedirrigationpipsandsweepscomparedtosonicandpassiveultrasonicactivationanexvivostudy
AT olivigiovanni fesemevaluationofsmearlayerremovalfromconservativelyshapedcanalslaseractivatedirrigationpipsandsweepscomparedtosonicandpassiveultrasonicactivationanexvivostudy
AT olivimatteo fesemevaluationofsmearlayerremovalfromconservativelyshapedcanalslaseractivatedirrigationpipsandsweepscomparedtosonicandpassiveultrasonicactivationanexvivostudy
AT buonicristiano fesemevaluationofsmearlayerremovalfromconservativelyshapedcanalslaseractivatedirrigationpipsandsweepscomparedtosonicandpassiveultrasonicactivationanexvivostudy
AT cianconiluigi fesemevaluationofsmearlayerremovalfromconservativelyshapedcanalslaseractivatedirrigationpipsandsweepscomparedtosonicandpassiveultrasonicactivationanexvivostudy