Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Smear layer removal by different chemical solutions used with or without ultrasonic activation after post preparation

  • Received : 2017.07.08
  • Accepted : 2017.10.07
  • Published : 2017.11.08
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: This study evaluated smear layer removal by different chemical solutions used with or without ultrasonic activation after post preparation. Materials and Methods: Forty-five extracted uniradicular human mandibular premolars with single canals were treated endodontically. The cervical and middle thirds of the fillings were then removed, and the specimens were divided into 9 groups: G1, saline solution (NaCl); G2, 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); G3, 2% chlorhexidine (CHX); G4, 11.5% polyacrylic acid (PAA); G5, 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). For the groups 6, 7, 8, and 9, the same solutions used in the groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 were used, respectively, but activated with ultrasonic activation. Afterwards, the roots were analyzed by a score considering the images obtained from a scanning electron microscope. Results: EDTA achieved the best performance compared with the other solutions evaluated regardless of the irrigation method (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Ultrasonic activation did not significantly influence smear layer removal.

Keywords

References

  1. Kirkevang LL, Orstavik D, Horsted-Bindslev P, Wenzel A. Periapical status and quality of root fillings and coronal restorations in a Danish population. Int Endod J 2000;33:509-515. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2000.00381.x
  2. Hommez GM, Coppens CR, De Moor RJ. Periapical health related to the quality of coronal restorations and root fillings. Int Endod J 2002;35:680-689. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00546.x
  3. Mohammadi Z, Jafarzadeh H, Shalavi S, Bhandi S, Kinoshita J. Resilon: review of a new material for obturation of the canal. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16:407-414. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1698
  4. Souza LC, Yadlapati M, Dorn SO, Silva R, Letra A. Analysis of radiopacity, pH and cytotoxicity of a new bioceramic material. J Appl Oral Sci 2015;23:383-389. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720150065
  5. Carvalho AO, Bruzi G, Anderson RE, Maia HP, Giannini M, Magne P. Influence of adhesive core buildup designs on the resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with lithium disilicate CAD/CAM crowns. Oper Dent 2016;41:76-82. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-277-L
  6. Verissimo C, Simamoto Junior PC, Soares CJ, Noritomi PY, Santos-Filho PC. Effect of the crown, post, and remaining coronal dentin on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:234-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.006
  7. Freedman GA. Esthetic post-and-core treatment. Dent Clin North Am 2001;45:103-116.
  8. Goracci C, Ferrari M. Current perspectives on post systems: a literature review. Aust Dent J 2011;56 Supplement 1:77-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01298.x
  9. Calixto LR, Bandeca MC, Clavijo V, Andrade MF, Vaz LG, Campos EA. Effect of resin cement system and root region on the push-out bond strength of a translucent fiber post. Oper Dent 2012;37:80-86. https://doi.org/10.2341/11-035-L
  10. Serafino C, Gallina G, Cumbo E, Ferrari M. Surface debris of canal walls after post space preparation in endodontically treated teeth: a scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;97:381-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2003.10.004
  11. Baena E, Flores A, Ceballos L. Influence of root dentin treatment on the push-out bond strength of fiber posts. Odontology 2017;105:170-177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-016-0252-7
  12. Violich DR, Chandler NP. The smear layer in endodontics - a review. Int Endod J 2010;43:2-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01627.x
  13. Kuci A, Alacam T, Yavas O, Ergul-Ulger Z, Kayaoglu G. Sealer penetration into dentinal tubules in the presence or absence of smear layer: a confocal laser scanning microscopic study. J Endod 2014;40:1627-1631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.03.019
  14. Scotti N, Rota R, Scansetti M, Migliaretti G, Pasqualini D, Berutti E. Fiber post adhesion to radicular dentin: the use of acid etching prior to a one-step self-etching adhesive. Quintessence Int 2012;43:615-623.
  15. Kuah HG, Lui JN, Tseng PS, Chen NN. The effect of EDTA with and without ultrasonics on removal of the smear layer. J Endod 2009;35:393-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.12.007
  16. Roy RA, Ahmad M, Crum LA. Physical mechanisms governing the hydrodynamic response of an oscillating ultrasonic file. Int Endod J 1994;27:197-207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1994.tb00254.x
  17. Kato AS, Cunha RS, da Silveira Bueno CE, Pelegrine RA, Fontana CE, de Martin AS. Investigation of the efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation versus irrigation with reciprocating activation: an environmental scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2016;42:659-663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.01.016
  18. Torabinejad M, Cho Y, Khademi AA, Bakland LK, Shabahang S. The effect of various concentrations of sodium hypochlorite on the ability of MTAD to remove the smear layer. J Endod 2003;29:233-239. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200304000-00001
  19. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003;28:215-235.
  20. Boone KJ, Murchison DF, Schindler WG, Walker WA 3rd. Post retention: the effect of sequence of post-space preparation, cementation time, and different sealers. J Endod 2001;27:768-771. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200112000-00014
  21. Lui JN, Kuah HG, Chen NN. Effect of EDTA with and without surfactants or ultrasonics on removal of smear layer. J Endod 2007;33:472-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.12.007
  22. Poggio C, Dagna A, Chiesa M, Bianchi S, Arciola CR, Visai L, Giardino L. SEM evaluation of the root canal walls after treatment with Tetraclean. Int J Artif Organs 2010;33:660-666. https://doi.org/10.1177/039139881003300912
  23. Gu XH, Mao CY, Kern M. Effect of different irrigation on smear layer removal after post space preparation. J Endod 2009;35:583-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.01.006
  24. de Vasconcelos BC, Luna-Cruz SM, De-Deus G, de Moraes IG, Maniglia-Ferreira C, Gurgel-Filho ED. Cleaning ability of chlorhexidine gel and sodium hypochlorite associated or not with EDTA as root canal irrigants: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15:387-391. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572007000500003
  25. Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Qian W, Gao Y. Irrigation in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54:291-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2009.12.001
  26. Lo Giudice G, Lizio A, Giudice RL, Centofanti A, Rizzo G, Runci M, Alibrandi A, Cicciu M. The effect of different cleaning protocols on post space: a SEM study. Int J Dent 2016;2016:1907124.
  27. Mirseifinejad R, Tabrizizade M, Davari A, Mehravar F. Efficacy of different root canal irrigants on smear layer removal after post space preparation: a scanning electron microscopy evaluation. Iran Endod J 2017;12:185-190.
  28. Choudhary K, Nandlal B. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of nano-hydroxyapatite incorporated glass ionomer cement and conventional glass ionomer cement on dense synthetic hydroxyapatite disk: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2015;26:170-175. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.159152
  29. Youm SH, Jung KH, Son SA, Kwon YH, Park JK. Effect of dentin pretreatment and curing mode on the microtensile bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements. J Adv Prosthodont 2015;7:317-322. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.4.317
  30. Mount GJ. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Glass-ionomer cements: past, present and future. Oper Dent 1994;19:82-90.
  31. Vasiliadis L, Darling AI, Levers BG. The amount and distribution of sclerotic human root dentine. Arch Oral Biol 1983;28:645-649. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(83)90013-4
  32. Vasiliadis L, Darling AI, Levers BG. The histology of sclerotic human root dentine. Arch Oral Biol 1983;28:693-700. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(83)90103-6
  33. van der Sluis LW, Vogels MP, Verhaagen B, Macedo R, Wesselink PR. Study on the influence of refreshment/activation cycles and irrigants on mechanical cleaning efficiency during ultrasonic activation of the irrigant. J Endod 2010;36:737-740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.004
  34. Sabins RA, Johnson JD, Hellstein JW. A comparison of the cleaning efficacy of short-term sonic and ultrasonic passive irrigation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod 2003;29:674-678. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200310000-00016

Cited by

  1. The Antibacterial Efficacy and In Vivo Toxicity of Sodium Hypochlorite and Electrolyzed Oxidizing (EO) Water-Based Endodontic Irrigating Solutions vol.13, pp.2, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13020260