Restor Dent Endod.  2017 May;42(2):105-110. 10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.105.

The use of auxiliary devices during irrigation to increase the cleaning ability of a chelating agent

Affiliations
  • 1PROCLIN Department, School of Dentistry, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. marinaprado@dentistas.com.br
  • 2Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
  • 3Department of Dental Clinic, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.

Abstract


OBJECTIVES
This study investigated the cleaning ability of ultrasonically activated irrigation (UAI) and a novel activation system with reciprocating motion (EC, EasyClean, Easy Equipamentos Odontológicos) when used with a relatively new chelating agent (QMix, Dentsply). In addition, the effect of QMix solution when used for a shorter (1 minute) and a longer application time (3 minutes) was investigated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fifty permanent human teeth were prepared with K3 rotary system and 6% sodium hypochlorite. Samples were randomly assigned to five groups (n = 10) according to the final irrigation protocol: G1, negative control (distilled water); G2, positive control (QMix 1 minute); G3, QMix 1 minute/UAI; G4, QMix 1 minute/EC; G5, QMix 3 minutes. Subsequently the teeth were prepared and three photomicrographs were obtained in each root third of root walls, by scanning electron microscopy. Two blinded and pre-calibrated examiners evaluated the images using a four-category scoring system. Data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (p < 0.05).
RESULTS
There were differences among groups (p < 0.05). UAI showed better cleaning ability than EC (p < 0.05). There were improvements when QMix was used with auxiliary devices in comparison with conventional irrigation (p < 0.05). Conventional irrigation for 3 minutes presented significantly better results than its use for 1 minute (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
QMix should be used for 1 minute when it is used with UAI, since this final irrigation protocol showed the best performance and also allowed clinical optimization of this procedure.

Keyword

Endodontics; Root canal irrigants; Root canal therapy; Scanning electron microscopy; Smear layer; Ultrasonics

MeSH Terms

Endodontics
Humans
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Root Canal Irrigants
Root Canal Therapy
Smear Layer
Sodium Hypochlorite
Tooth
Ultrasonics
Root Canal Irrigants
Sodium Hypochlorite

Figure

  • Figure 1 Representative images of the Score system attributed to SEM images (×1,000). (a) Score 1, complete absence of SL or debris; (b) Score 2, most part of root surface without SL and debris; (c) Score 3, most part of root surface covered by SL and debris; (d) Score 4, root surface completely covered by SL and debris with no visible dentinal tubule. SL, smear layer.

  • Figure 2 Photomicrographs of EasyClean. (a) Cross-sectional image of the instrument tip, showing two edges in opposite sides of EasyClean (×150); (b - d) EasyClean instrument body (×50).


Cited by  2 articles

Effect of QMix irrigant in removal of smear layer in root canal system: a systematic review of in vitro studies
Margaret Soo Yee Chia, Abhishek Parolia, Benjamin Syek Hur Lim, Jayakumar Jayaraman, Isabel Cristina Celerino de Moraes Porto
Restor Dent Endod. 2020;45(3):e28.    doi: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e28.

Smear layer removal by passive ultrasonic irrigation and 2 new mechanical methods for activation of the chelating solution
Ricardo Machado, Isadora da Silva, Daniel Comparin, Bianca Araujo Marques de Mattos, Luiz Rômulo Alberton, Ulisses Xavier da Silva Neto
Restor Dent Endod. 2021;46(1):e11.    doi: 10.5395/rde.2021.46.e11.


Reference

1. Metzger Z, Solomonov M, Kfir A. The role of mechanical instrumentation in the cleaning of root canals. Endod Topics. 2013; 29:87–109.
Article
2. Mozo S, Llena C, Forner L. Review of ultrasonic irrigation in endodontics: increasing action of irrigating solutions. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012; 17:e512–e516. PMID: 22143738.
Article
3. Munoz HR, Camacho-Cuadra K. In vivo efficacy of three different endodontic irrigation systems for irrigant delivery to working length of mesial canals of mandibular molars. J Endod. 2012; 38:445–448. PMID: 22414827.
4. Wang Z, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. Effect of smear layer against disinfection protocols on Enterococcus faecalis-infected dentin. J Endod. 2013; 39:1395–1400. PMID: 24139261.
5. Morgental RD, Singh A, Sappal H, Kopper PM, Vier-Pelisser FV, Peters OA. Dentin inhibits the antibacterial effect of new and conventional endodontic irrigants. J Endod. 2013; 39:406–410. PMID: 23402517.
6. Torabinejad M, Handysides R, Khademi AA, Bakland LK. Clinical implications of the smear layer in endodontics: a review. Oral surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002; 94:658–666. PMID: 12464887.
Article
7. Kamel WH, Kataia EM. Comparison of the efficacy of smear clear with and without a canal brush in smear layer and debris removal from instrumented root canal using WaveOne versus ProTaper: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2014; 40:446–450. PMID: 24565669.
8. Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L, Armellin E, Conte G, Cianconi L. Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, Endovac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): field emission scanning electron microscopic evaluation in an in vitro study. J Endod. 2013; 39:1456–1460. PMID: 24139274.
9. Paragliola R, Franco V, Fabiani C, Mazzoni A, Nato F, Tay FR, Breschi L, Grandini S. Final rinse optimization: influence of different agitation protocols. J Endod. 2010; 36:282–285. PMID: 20113791.
Article
10. Jiang LM, Lak B, Eijsvogels LM, Wesselink P, Van Der Sluis LW. Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of different final irrigation techniques. J Endod. 2012; 38:838–841. PMID: 22595122.
Article
11. Curtis TO, Sedgley CM. Comparison of a continuous ultrasonic irrigation device and conventional needle irrigation in the removal of root canal debris. J Endod. 2012; 38:1261–1264. PMID: 22892747.
12. Van der Sluis LW, Versluis M, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: a review of the literature. Int Endod J. 2007; 40:415–426. PMID: 17442017.
Article
13. 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. PMID: 26906240.
14. Prado M, Gusman H, Gomes BP, Simão RA. Scanning electron microscopic investigation of the effectiveness of phosphoric acid in smear layer removal when compared with EDTA and citric acid. J Endod. 2011; 37:255–258. PMID: 21238813.
Article
15. 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. J Endod. 2009; 35:900–903. PMID: 19482195.
Article
16. Dai L, Khechen K, Khan S, Gillen B, Loushine BA, Wimmer CE, Gutmann JL, Pashley D, Tay FR. The effect of QMix, an experimental antibacterial root canal irrigant, on removal of canal wall smear layer and debris. J Endod. 2011; 37:80–84. PMID: 21146083.
Article
17. Aranda-Garcia AJ, Kuga MC, Vitorino KR, Chávez-Andrade GM, Duarte MA, Bonetti-Filho I, Faria G, Só MV. Effect of the root canal final rinse protocols on the debris and smear layer removal and on the pushout strength of an epoxy-based sealer. Microsc Res Tech. 2013; 76:533–537. PMID: 23440741.
Article
18. Plotino G, Pameijer CH, Grande NM, Somma F. Ultrasonics in endodontics: a review of the literature. J Endod. 2007; 33:81–95. PMID: 17258622.
Article
19. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod. 2006; 32:389–398. PMID: 16631834.
Article
20. Prado M, Santos Júnior HM, Rezende CM, Pinto AC, Faria RB, Simão RA, Gomes BP. Interactions between irrigants commonly used in endodontic practice: a chemical analysis. J Endod. 2013; 39:505–510. PMID: 23522546.
21. Elnaghy AM. Effect of QMix irrigant on bond strength of glass fiber posts to root dentine. Int Endod J. 2014; 47:280–289. PMID: 23829648.
Full Text Links
  • RDE
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr