Evaluation of four final irrigation protocols for cleaning root canal walls.
10.1038/s41368-020-00091-4
- Author:
Qiang LI
1
;
Qian ZHANG
2
;
Xiaoying ZOU
3
,
4
;
Lin YUE
5
Author Information
1. Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Operative Dentistry, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Peking University, Beijing, PR China.
2. Central Laboratory, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, 100081, PR China.
3. Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Operative Dentistry, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Peking University, Beijing, PR China. zouxiaoying1125@
4. com.
5. Department of Cariology, Endodontology and Operative Dentistry, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Peking University, Beijing, PR China. kqlinyue@bjmu.edu.cn.
- Publication Type:Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH:
Dental Pulp Cavity;
Edetic Acid;
Humans;
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning;
Root Canal Irrigants;
Root Canal Preparation;
Smear Layer;
Sodium Hypochlorite
- From:
International Journal of Oral Science
2020;12(1):29-29
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
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.
