Comparison of Three Final Irrigation Activation Techniques: Effects on Canal Cleanness, Smear Layer Removal, and Dentinal Tubule Penetration of Two Root Canal Sealers

Abstract

The effects of EV, PIPS, and CSI on debridement efficacy, smear layer removal, and dentinal tubule penetration were almost comparable. TotalFill BC showed superior tubular penetration than AH Plus.

Effectiveness of different irrigation systems in the presence of intracanal‐separated file

“…Nowadays, several irrigation techniques are utilized to effectively remove the smear layer. Manual, photon-induced photoacoustic streaming (PIPS), automated, and sonic and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) activation techniques have been shown to be superior to conventional syringe irrigation (CSI) (Caron, Nham, Bronnec, & Machtou, 2010;Gonçalves, Nabeshima, Martins, & Machado, 2011;Turkel, Onay, & Ungor, 2017). Acoustic energy is delivered to the intracanal irrigation solution via a file or special tip to generate acoustic streaming and cavitation in PUI method (Roy, Ahmad, & Crum, 1994).…”

Effect of several laser systems on removal of smear layer with a variety of irrigation solutions

“…Although SEM evaluation is known for being subjective due to its dependency on operator, to minimize this observer bias, SEM images were obtained from equidistant points of each root canal third similar to previous studies (Ayranci et al, ; Zhu et al, ). Despite the fact that SEM images are obtained at different magnifications in our study, observers scored SEM images at 1000× magnification similarly to several previous studies (Arslan et al, ; Castagna et al, ; Kocak et al, ; Sahar‐Helft et al, ; Turkel et al, ; Zhu et al, ). It is well known that smear‐free dentin regions are selected by SEM operators (Hülsmann, Peters, & Dummer, ).…”

“…Despite the fact that SEM images are obtained at different magnifications in our study, observers scored SEM images at 1000× magnification similarly to several previous studies Castagna et al, 2013;Kocak et al, 2017;Sahar-Helft et al, 2015;Turkel et al, 2017;Zhu et al, 2013). It is well known that smear-free dentin regions are selected by SEM operators (Hülsmann, Peters, & Dummer, 2005).…”

“…Ayranci et al () reported that activation of NaOCl and EDTA solutions by PIPS technique using the Er: YAG laser with parameters of 0.3 W, 15 Hz and 20 mJ resulted more efficient smear layer removal in both middle and apical regions compared to the ultrasonic activation of the same solutions. These parameters were used with the PIPS technique in this study as well as in many studies of the literature (Arslan, Capar, Saygili, Gok, & Akcay, ; DiVito et al, ; Turkel, Onay, & Ungor, ; Zhu et al, ).…”

“…Akyuz Ekim and Erdemir () reported that the lowest smear scores in the middle regions were noted in the group in which NaOCl and EDTA were activated by Er: YAG laser. In another study, it was shown that there was no statistically significant difference in smear layer removal in the middle regions when NaOCl and EDTA solutions were not activated and same solutions were activated with Er: YAG laser (Turkel et al, ). The results of these studies have similar results to ours.…”