Evaluation of four final irrigation protocols for cleaning root canal walls

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of four final irrigation protocols in smear layer removal and bacterial inhibition in root canal systems. Thirty roots inoculated with Enterococcus faecalis were prepared with ProTaper Universal files. The teeth were disinfected by conventional needle irrigation, sonic agitation using the EndoActivator device, passive ultrasonic irrigation, or an M3 Max file. Teeth with no root canal preparation served as blank controls for the establishment of the infection baseline. Teeth with preparation but no final irrigation served as a post-instrumentation baseline. After the final irrigation, the teeth were sectioned in half. One half of each tooth was examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to assess smear layer removal using a five-point scale. The other half was examined by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) using the LIVE/DEAD BackLight bacterial viability kit to evaluate the depth of bacterial survival in dentinal tubules. SEM analysis revealed no significant difference in smear layer removal throughout the whole canal among the EA, PUI, and M3 Max groups (P > 0.05). CLSM revealed that PUI achieved the greatest bacterial inhibition depth in the coronal ((174.27 ± 31.63) μm), middle ((160.94 ± 37.77) μm), and apical ((119.53 ± 28.49) μm) thirds of the canal (all P < 0.05 vs. other groups). According to this comprehensive SEM and CLSM evaluation, PUI appears to have the best infection control ability in root canal systems.

References

[1] Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K. A prospective study of the factors affecting outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment: part 1: periapical health. Int. Endod. J., 2011, 44: 583-609.

[2] Shuping GB, Orstavik D, Sigurdsson A, Trope M. Reduction of intracanal bacteria using nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation and various medications. J. Endod., 2000, 26: 751-755.

[3] Peters OA, Schonenberger K, Laib A. Effects of four Ni-Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography. Int. Endod. J., 2001, 34: 221-230.

[4] Peters OA, Peters CI, Schonenberger K, Barbakow F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: effects of canal anatomy on final shape analysed by micro CT. Int. Endod. J., 2003, 36: 86-92.

[5] Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Wang Z, Gao Y. Irrigation in endodontics. Br. Dent. J., 2014, 216: 299-303.

[6] Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J. Endod., 2006, 32: 389-398.

[7] Grawehr M, Sener B, Waltimo T, Zehnder M. Interactions of ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid with sodium hypochlorite in aqueous solutions. Int. Endod. J., 2003, 36: 411-417.

[8] Zou L, Shen Y, Li W, Haapasalo M. Penetration of sodium hypochlorite into dentin. J. Endod., 2010, 36: 793-796.

[9] Jiang LM, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, van der Sluis LW. Evaluation of a sonic device designed to activate irrigant in the root canal. J. Endod., 2010, 36: 143-146.

[10] Paragliola R, . Final rinse optimization: influence of different agitation protocols. J. Endod., 2010, 36: 282-285.

[11] Ahmad M, Pitt Ford TR, Crum LA, Walton AJ. Ultrasonic debridement of root canals: acoustic cavitation and its relevance. Int. Endod. J., 2009, 42: 391-398.

[12] Peters LB, Wesselink PR, Buijs JF, van Winkelhoff AJ. Viable bacteria in root dentinal tubules of teeth with apical periodontitis. J. Endod., 2001, 27: 76-81.

[13] Ma J, Wang Z, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. A new noninvasive model to study the effectiveness of dentin disinfection by using confocal laser scanning microscopy. J. Endod., 2011, 37: 1380-1385.

[14] Gao Y, . Development and validation of a three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics model of root canal irrigation. J. Endod., 2009, 35: 1282-1287.

[15] Azim AA, Aksel H, Margaret Jefferson M, Huang GT. Comparison of sodium hypochlorite extrusion by five irrigation systems using an artificial root socket model and a quantitative chemical method. Clin. Oral. Investig., 2018, 22: 1055-1061.

[16] Bao P, Shen Y, Lin J, Haapasalo M. In vitro efficacy of XP-endo finisher with 2 different protocols on biofilm removal from apical root canals. J. Endod., 2017, 43: 321-325.

[17] Caron G, Nham K, Bronnec F, Machtou P. Effectiveness of different final irrigant activation protocols on smear layer removal in curved canals. J. Endod., 2010, 36: 1361-1366.

[18] Blank-Goncalves LM, Nabeshima CK, Martins GH, Machado ME. Qualitative analysis of the removal of the smear layer in the apical third of curved roots: conventional irrigation versus activation systems. J. Endod., 2011, 37: 1268-1271.

[19] Rodig T, Dollmann S, Konietschke F, Drebenstedt S, Hulsmann M. Effectiveness of different irrigant agitation techniques on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a scanning electron microscopy study. J. Endod., 2010, 36: 1983-1987.

[20] Azim AA, . Efficacy of 4 irrigation protocols in killing bacteria colonized in dentinal tubules examined by a novel confocal laser scanning microscope analysis. J. Endod., 2016, 42: 928-934.

[21] Zarrabi MH, Bidar M, Jafarzadeh H. An in vitro comparative study of apically extruded debris resulting from conventional and three rotary (Profile, Race, FlexMaster) instrumentation techniques. J. Oral. Sci., 2006, 48: 85-88.

[22] Chow TW. Mechanical effectiveness of root canal irrigation. J. Endod., 1983, 9: 475-479.

[23] Leoni GB, . Ex vivo evaluation of four final irrigation protocols on the removal of hard-tissue debris from the mesial root canal system of mandibular first molars. Int. Endod. J., 2017, 50: 398-406.

[24] Klyn SL, Kirkpatrick TC, Rutledge RE. In vitro comparisons of debris removal of the EndoActivator system, the F file, ultrasonic irrigation, and NaOCl irrigation alone after hand-rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars. J. Endod., 2010, 36: 1367-1371.

[25] Uroz-Torres D, Gonzalez-Rodriguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM. Effectiveness of the endoactivator system in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation. J. Endod., 2010, 36: 308-311.

[26] Malki M, . Irrigant flow beyond the insertion depth of an ultrasonically oscillating file in straight and curved root canals: visualization and cleaning efficacy. J. Endod., 2012, 38: 657-661.

[27] Ahmad M, Pitt Ford TR, Crum LA, Walton AJ. Ultrasonic debridement of root canals: acoustic cavitation and its relevance. J. Endod., 1988, 14: 486-493.

[28] Ruddle CJ. Endodontic disinfection: the sonic advantage. Dent. Today, 2017, 36: 86-87.

[29] Kanter V, . A quantitative and qualitative analysis of ultrasonic versus sonic endodontic systems on canal cleanliness and obturation. Oral. Surg. Oral. Med. Oral. Pathol. Oral. Radiol. Endod., 2011, 112: 809-813.

[30] de Gregorio C, Estevez R, Cisneros R, Paranjpe A, Cohenca N. Efficacy of different irrigation and activation systems on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into simulated lateral canals and up to working length: an in vitro study. J. Endod., 2010, 36: 1216-1221.

[31] Macedo R, . Cavitation measurement during sonic and ultrasonic activated irrigation. J. Endod., 2014, 40: 580-583.

[32] Jiang LM, . The influence of the ultrasonic intensity on the cleaning efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation. J. Endod., 2011, 37: 688-692.

[33] Fleiss J. L. The design and analysis of clinical experiments. (Wiley-Interscience Publication, 1999).

[34] Lin J, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. A comparative study of biofilm removal with hand, rotary nickel-titanium, and self-adjusting file instrumentation using a novel in vitro biofilm model. J. Endod., 2013, 39: 658-663.

[35] Harrison AJ, Chivatxaranukul P, Parashos P, Messer HH. The effect of ultrasonically activated irrigation on reduction of Enterococcus faecalis in experimentally infected root canals. Int. Endod. J., 2010, 43: 968-977.

[36] Netherlands S Kappa Coefficient. (Springer: Netherlands, 2008).

[37] Hulsmann M, Rummelin C, Schafers F. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative SEM investigation. J. Endod., 1997, 23: 301-306.