Effects of different sonic activation protocols on debridement efficacy in teeth with single-rooted canals

Niu, Li Na; Luo, Xiao; Li, Guo Hua; Bortoluzzi, Eduardo Antunes; Mao, Jing; Chen, Ji Hua; Gutmann, James L.; Pashley, David H.; Tay, Franklin R.

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2014.05.007

Cited by 29 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(37 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Auxiliary devices may also create a flux-reflux mechanism that propels debris and microorganisms out of the root canal system. The present results are similar to those of recent report (22) that evaluated the effects of QMix with different sonic activation protocols on canal debridement and concluded that, with 30 s of activation, this solution results in better cleaning and significantly reduces the minimum duration required for action. It is important to point out, however, that agitation of root canal irrigants may increase apical extrusion in conjunction with factors such as root canal anatomy and the technique used.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Although this suggests that the absence of an associated device can be compensated for by increasing the duration of solution action, care is necessary as the toxicity of an agent usually increases with time (14). These results are in agreement with those of a previous study (22), which reported that root canal walls were cleaner, and the time required for satisfactory SL removal was shorter, for sonic activation of QMix than for conventional needle irrigation.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Hence, irrigation methods and devices are used in association with disinfection agents, both to enable better cleaning (19) and reduce the time required for an effect (20). Previously reported methods include negative pressure irrigation (21), sonic activation (20,22), passive ultrasonic irrigation (19), manual dynamic activation with a K-file (20) or gutta-percha cones (20,21), continuous ultrasonic irrigation (21), use of a self-adjusting file with simultaneous irrigation and scrubbing (19), and plastic endodontic finishing files (20,23), among other methods.…”

Section: Originalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During this procedure, 5 mL of distilled water was used before the insertion of each file. The root apices were sealed with an adhesive wax (Technew, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil), to prevent extrusion of irrigants during chemomechanical preparation (22). All teeth were shaped by using K3 nickel-titanium rotary instruments (SybronEndo, Orange, CA, USA) in the following sequence: 25/.06 in the middle-cervical third and 15/.04, 20/.02, 20/.04, 25/.04, 20/.06, and 25/.06 in the apical third.…”

Section: Sl Production and Irrigation Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of auxiliary device use on smear layer removal

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the effects of different auxiliary irrigation devices on smear layer removal with a chelating solution (QMix). Fifty single-rooted permanent human teeth were shaped with a sequence of nickel-titanium instruments. A 2% chlorhexidine gel was used as a chemical auxiliary substance during preparation. Samples were assigned to five groups (n = 10 each) according to final irrigation protocol, namely, distilled water (control group), QMix 1 min, QMix + passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), QMix + plastic endodontic finishing file (EC), and QMix 3 min. Teeth were prepared and evaluated by scanning electron microscopy, and three photomicrographs (magnification, 1,000×) were obtained for each root third. Two blinded and precalibrated evaluators analyzed and scored the images, and the data were statistically analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (P < 0.05). Groups were ranked according to the extent of smear layer removal. The total area of the root canal walls and apical root thirds was calculated, and the groups ranked PUI > EC = QMix 3 min > QMix 1 min > control. QMix 1 min was effective for smear layer removal only when used with auxiliary devices, and QMix + passive ultrasonic irrigation yielded the best results, particularly for the apical third. (J Oral Sci 58, 561-567, 2016)

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Originalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sl Production and Irrigation Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of auxiliary device use on smear layer removal

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding the use of S instruments, Niu et al 12 studied the activation of irrigants using the EndoActivator system for a period of 30 to 60 seconds. Observing the samples by SEM, they said that activation of the irrigant maximized the removal of detritus and reduced the time required for cleaning compared with conventional irrigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sonic versus ultrasonic activation for the cleaning of the root canal after post space preparation: an in vitro study.

Carrasco¹,

Román²,

Ojeda³

et al. 2015

Joralres

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sonic versus ultrasonic activation for the cleaning of the root canal after post space preparation: an in vitro study. Cite as: Carrasco R, Román R, Ojeda M & Vergara C. Sonic versus ultrasonic activation for the cleaning of the root canal after post space preparation: an in vitro study. J Oral Res 2015; 4(4): 255-262.Abstract: Objective: To compare the efficacy of 3 intracanal cleaning protocols used before cementation of prosthetic posts. Material and Methods: 40 anterior teeth received endodontic treatment in hand, using lateral condensation technique. After two weeks, gutta-percha was appropriately removed from the teeth to get the necessary space to install a post. Then, teeth were randomly divided into groups; root surface was treated with chlorhexidine (CHX) activated by ultrasound (US) (group I), with chlorhexidine activated by sonic instrumentation (S) (group II), chlorhexidine without activation (group III) and without treatment (group IV). All teeth were fractured longitudinally getting 2 sections. The middle third of the root canal was microphotographed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and the contaminated surface was measured using detritus with ImageJ 1.47. INTRODUCTION.Endodontically treated teeth usually require a post inside the root canal to retain a coronal restoration 1 . Fiber posts offer advantages over metal posts, such as favorable fracture patterns that could be restored because they are less rigid, and because they provide an easy removal of the post from the root canal in case of repeated endodontic treatment 2 .Various resin cements are used for bonding fiber posts. The method of application involves multiple steps, and is rather complex and dependent on the technique used by the dentist, and therefore it may affect the quality of the adhesion 3 .Manufacturers suggest removing detritus or debris from tooth surfaces by using ultrasound or pumice. They also suggest keeping tooth surface clean with ethanol, citric acid, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) or phosphoric acid to improve adhesion and eliminate any residue 4 .However, surface treatments with different root dentin agents can cause changes in its chemical and structural composition, which in turn, may alter its permeability and solubility characteristics 5 .It is important to have in mind that the penetration of irrigation in the canal depends on the anatomy of the root canal, on the irrigant application techniques, the volume of the solution, instrumentation of the root canal and physicochemical characteristics of the irrigant 6 . The- of the treated dentin.Cecchin et al. 7 compared bond strength and fracture patterns between experimental groups irrigated with chlorhexidine (CHX), under different application times (30, 60, and 120 seconds) and a control group irrigated with saline. Significant differences for both fracture patterns and bond strength were observed. They concluded that the use of CHX pretreatment could preserve the bond strength of the fiber post for 12 months using resin cement, regardless of the ...

show abstract