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

doi:10.5395/rde.2021.46.e11

Smear layer removal by passive ultrasonic irrigation and 2 new mechanical methods for activation of the chelating solution

Restor Dent Endod. 2021 Jan 26;46(1):e11. doi: 10.5395/rde.2021.46.e11. eCollection 2021 Feb.

Authors

Ricardo Machado¹, Isadora da Silva², Daniel Comparin², Bianca Araujo Marques de Mattos¹, Luiz Rômulo Alberton³, Ulisses Xavier da Silva Neto¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Endodontics, Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná - PUCPR, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
² Department of Endodontics, Paranaense University - UNIPAR, Francisco Beltrão, Paraná, Brazil.
³ Department of Veterinary Medicine, Paranaense University- UNIPAR, Umuarama, Paraná, Brazil.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare smear layer removal by conventional application (CA), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), EasyClean (EC), and XP-Endo Finisher (XPF), using 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) after chemomechanical preparation, as evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Materials and methods: Forty-five single-rooted human mandibular premolars were selected for this study. After chemomechanical preparation, the teeth were randomly divided into 5 groups according to the protocol for smear layer removal, as follows: G1 (control): CA of distilled water; G2 (CA): CA of 17% EDTA; G3 (PUI): 17% EDTA activated by PUI; G4 (EC): 17% EDTA activated by EC; and G5 (XPF): 17% EDTA activated by XPF. SEM images (×1,000) were obtained from each root third and scored by 3 examiners. Data were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (p < 0.05).

Results: In the apical third, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups (p > 0.05). In the cervical and middle thirds, the experimental groups performed better than the control group (p < 0.05); however, G2 presented better results than G3, G4, and G5 (p < 0.05), which showed no differences among one another (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: No irrigation method was able to completely remove the smear layer, especially in the apical third. Using CA for the chelating solution performed better than any form of activation.

Keywords: Cleaning; Irrigation; Root canal.