Widbiller Matthias, Rosendahl Andreas, Schlichting Ralf, Schuller Christine, Lingl Benedikt, Hiller Karl-Anton, Buchalla Wolfgang, Galler Kerstin M
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.
Independent Researcher, 94032 Passau, Germany.
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Jan 29;11(3):376. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11030376.
The objective of this study was to compare the ability of different endodontic irrigation activation methods to enable irrigant penetration, remove the smear layer from root canal walls after preparation, and investigate surface effects on dentine. Root canals of 90 single-rooted teeth were prepared and irrigated with EDTA (17%) and sodium hypochlorite (5%), where both irrigants or sodium hypochlorite only were activated as follows: conventional needle irrigation, ultrasonic activation, sonic activation (EDDY), or laser-based activation (photon-induced photoacoustic streaming/PIPS). For the evaluation of irrigant penetration into dentinal tubules, methylene blue was injected and activated as well. Subsequently, teeth were sectioned horizontally, and dye penetration depths were measured. Alternating sections were split in halves and randomly selected for scanning electron microscopic analysis. Root canal dentine was assessed for smear layer removal and surface disintegration according to a defined scoring system. The data were analyzed statistically with nonparametric and chi-squared tests for whole teeth and separately for coronal, middle, and apical thirds. All the tested activation methods removed a thicker smear layer than needle irrigation only. Additional activation of EDTA improved penetration depths of the irrigants, but not the smear layer removal. Surface disintegration of root canal dentine was observed with the additional activation of EDTA and particularly after laser-based techniques. Additional activation of EDTA does not seem to offer any convincing advantages in terms of irrigant penetration or smear layer removal but disrupts the dentine surface. Especially laser-based activation resulted in undesirable destruction of root canal wall dentine.
本研究的目的是比较不同根管冲洗激活方法使冲洗剂渗透、在根管预备后去除根管壁玷污层的能力,并研究其对牙本质的表面影响。选取90颗单根牙,预备根管后用乙二胺四乙酸(17%)和次氯酸钠(5%)冲洗,冲洗剂单独或仅次氯酸钠按以下方式激活:传统针管冲洗、超声激活、声波激活(EDDY)或激光激活(光致光声流/PIPS)。为评估冲洗剂渗入牙本质小管的情况,也注入并激活亚甲蓝。随后,将牙齿水平切片,测量染料渗透深度。将交替切片一分为二,随机选取用于扫描电子显微镜分析。根据既定评分系统评估根管牙本质的玷污层去除情况和表面崩解情况。对全牙以及分别对冠部、中部和根尖三分之一的数据进行非参数检验和卡方检验的统计学分析。所有测试的激活方法去除的玷污层都比仅用针管冲洗的厚。乙二胺四乙酸的额外激活提高了冲洗剂的渗透深度,但未改善玷污层的去除效果。乙二胺四乙酸的额外激活观察到根管牙本质的表面崩解,尤其是在基于激光的技术之后。乙二胺四乙酸在冲洗剂渗透或玷污层去除方面似乎没有任何令人信服的优势,但会破坏牙本质表面。特别是基于激光的激活导致根管壁牙本质出现不良破坏。