Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:44:25.751Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scanning Electron Microscopy Comparison of the Cleaning Efficacy of a Root Canal System by Nd:YAG Laser and Rotary Instruments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2014

Mohammad Samiei ,
Seyyed Mahdi Vahid Pakdel ,
Sahand Rikhtegaran ,
Sahar Shakoei ,
Delaram Ebrahimpour  and
Pedram Taghavi
Mohammad Samiei
Affiliation:
Department of Endodontics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Seyyed Mahdi Vahid Pakdel
Affiliation:
Department of Prosthodontics, Student’s research committee, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Sahand Rikhtegaran
Affiliation:
Department of Restorative dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Sahar Shakoei
Affiliation:
Department of Endodontics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Delaram Ebrahimpour*
Affiliation:
Department of Oral medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran
Pedram Taghavi
Affiliation:
Dentist, Private practice, Tabriz, Iran
*
*Corresponding author. [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This study evaluated the cleaning efficacy of a root canal system by Nd:YAG laser and rotary instruments. Sixty single-rooted human teeth were divided into four experimental groups (n=15). In the first group the teeth were prepared with a step-back technique using conventional K-files. In the second and third groups, tooth preparation was carried out using Nd:YAG laser and rotary NiTi instruments, respectively. Teeth in the fourth group were prepared by combined laser and rotary methods. The smear layer remaining on canal walls was then assessed by scanning electron microscopy in the coronal, middle, and apical portions. The comparison of smear layer removal efficacy between groups was carried out by Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests. The mean grades of smear layer removal in rotary-laser, rotary, laser and step-back techniques were 1.34±0.18, 2.2±0.28, 1.91±0.25, and 2.42 ±0.19, respectively. On the whole, differences between rotary-laser and rotary groups, step-back, and the three other techniques (rotary, laser, and rotary-laser) were significant at p=0.034. Based on the findings of this study, the cleaning efficacy of rotary, laser, and rotary-laser techniques were better than the step-back technique and the combined laser and rotary technique was the most efficient method.

Keywords

Nd:YAG laserrotary instrumentsmear layerSEM
Type
Biological Applications
Information
Microscopy and Microanalysis , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , August 2014 , pp. 1240 - 1245
Copyright
© Microscopy Society of America 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ballal, N.V., Kandian, S., Mala, K., Bhat, K.S. & Acharya, S. (2009). Comparison of the efficacy of maleic acid and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid in smear layer removal from instrumented human root canal: A scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 35, 1573–1576.Google Scholar
Batista, L.H., Junior, J.G., Silva, M.F. & Tonholo, J. (2007). Atomic force microscopy of removal of dentin smear layers. Microsc Microanal 13, 245–250.Google Scholar
Crumpton, B.J., Goodell, G.G. & McClanahan, S.B. (2005). Effects on smear layer and debris removal with varying volumes of 17% REDTA after rotary instrumentation. J Endod 31, 536–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Economides, N., Liolios, E., Kolokuris, I. & Beltes, P. (1999). Long-term evaluation of the influence of smear layer removal on the sealing ability of different sealers. J Endod 25, 123–125.Google Scholar
FKG RaCe & SMD (2005). Rotary endodontic system. Suisse: FKG Dentaire.Google Scholar
Gutknecht, N. & Behrens, V.G. (1991). Instrumentation of root canal walls with Nd-YAG laser. ZWR 100 748–750, 752, 755.Google ScholarPubMed
Harashima, T., Takeda, F.H., Kimura, Y. & Matsumoto, K. (1997). Effect of Nd:YAG laser irradiation for removal of intracanal debris and smear layer in extracted human teeth. J Clin Laser Med Surg 15, 131–135.Google Scholar
Hata, G., Hayami, S., Weine, F.S. & Toda, T. (2001). Effectiveness of oxidative potential water as a root canal irrigant. Int Endod J 34, 308–317.Google Scholar
Hulsmann, M., Peters, O.A. & Dummer, P.M.H. (2005). Mechanical preparation of root canals: Shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Topics 10, 30–76.Google Scholar
Kalyoncuoglu, E. & Demiryurek, E.O. (2013). A comparative scanning electron microscopy evaluation of smear layer removal from teeth with different irrigation solutions and lasers. Microsc Microanal 19, 1465–1469.Google Scholar
Khedmat, S. & Shokouhinejad, N. (2008). Comparison of the efficacy of three chelating agents in smear layer removal. J Endod 34, 599–602.Google Scholar
Kimura, Y., Wilder-Smith, P. & Matsumoto, K. (2000). Lasers in endodontics: A review. Int Endod J 33, 173–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, B.S., Lin, C.P., Lin, F.H. & Lan, W.H. (2002). Ultrastructural changes of human dentin after irradiation by Nd:YAG laser. Lasers Surg Med 30, 246–252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, G. (1992). Cleaning and shaping the root canal with a Nd:YAG laser beam: A comparative study. J Endod 18, 123–127.Google Scholar
Lottanti, S., Gautschi, H., Sener, B. & Zehnder, M. (2009). Effects of ethylenediaminetetraacetic, etidronic and peracetic acid irrigation on human root dentine and the smear layer. Int Endod J 42, 335–343.Google Scholar
Lui, J.N., Kuah, H.G. & Chen, N.N. (2007). Effect of EDTA with and without surfactants or ultrasonics on removal of smear layer. J Endod 33, 472–475.Google Scholar
Mader, C.L., Baumgartner, J.C. & Peters, D.D. (1984). Scanning electron microscopic investigation of the smeared layer on root canal walls. J Endod 10, 477–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McComb, D. & Smith, D.C. (1975). A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod 1, 238–242.Google Scholar
Michiels, R., Vergauwen, T.E., Mavridou, A., Meire, M., De Bruyne, M. & De Moor, R.J. (2010). Investigation of coronal leakage of root fillings after smear-layer removal with EDTA or Nd:YAG lasing through capillary-flow porometry. Photomed Laser Surg 28(Suppl 2), S43–S50.Google Scholar
Mohammadi, Z. (2009). Laser applications in endodontics: An update review. Int Dent J 59, 35–46.Google Scholar
Moogi, P.P. & Rao, R.N. (2010). Cleaning and shaping the root canal with an Nd: YAG laser beam: A comparative study. J Conserv Dent 13, 84–88.Google Scholar
Moritz, A., Doertbudak, O., Gutknecht, N., Goharkhay, K., Schoop, U. & Sperr, W. (1997). Nd:YAG laser irradiation of infected root canals in combination with microbiological examinations. J Am Dent Assoc 128, 1525–1530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orstavik, D. & Haapasalo, M. (1990). Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and dressings of experimentally infected dentinal tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol 6, 142–149.Google Scholar
Park, D.S., Lee, H.J., Yoo, H.M. & Oh, T.S. (2001). Effect of Nd:YAG laser irradiation on the apical leakage of obturated root canals: An electrochemical study. Int Endod J 34, 318–321.Google Scholar
Peters, O.A. (2004). Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: A review. J Endod 30, 559–567.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, O.A. & Barbakow, F. (2000). Effects of irrigation on debris and smear layer on canal walls prepared by two rotary techniques: A scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 26, 6–10.Google Scholar
Schafer, E. & Schlingemann, R. (2003). Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium K3 instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 36, 208–217.Google Scholar
Schafer, E. & Vlassis, M. (2004). Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 37, 239–248.Google Scholar
Shahravan, A., Haghdoost, A.A., Adl, A., Rahimi, H. & Shadifar, F. (2007). Effect of smear layer on sealing ability of canal obturation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 33, 96–105.Google Scholar
Sipert, C.R., Hussne, R.P. & Nishiyama, C.K. (2006). Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of the FKG race system and hand instrument in molar root canal. J Appl Oral Sci 14, 6–9.Google Scholar
Stabholz, A., Sahar-Helft, S. & Moshonov, J. (2004). Lasers in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am 48, 809–832, vi.Google Scholar
Takeda, F.H., Harashima, T., Kimura, Y. & Matsumoto, K. (1998). Comparative study about the removal of smear layer by three types of laser devices. J Clin Laser Med Surg 16, 117–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Takeda, F.H., Harashima, T., Kimura, Y. & Matsumoto, K. (1999). A comparative study of the removal of smear layer by three endodontic irrigants and two types of laser. Int Endod J 32, 32–39.Google Scholar
Torabinejad, M., Handysides, R., Khademi, A.A. & Bakland, L.K. (2002). Clinical implications of the smear layer in endodontics: A review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 94, 658–666.Google Scholar
Torabinejad, M., Khademi, A.A., Babagoli, J., Cho, Y., Johnson, W.B., Bozhilov, K., Kim, J. & Shabahang, S. (2003). A new solution for the removal of the smear layer. J Endod 29, 170–175.Google Scholar
White, J.M., Goodis, H.E., Marshall, G.W. Jr. & Marshall, S.J. (1993). Identification of the physical modification threshold of dentin induced by neodymium and holmium YAG lasers using scanning electron microscopy. Scanning Microsc 7, 239–245. discussion 245–236.Google Scholar
Yildirim, T., Orucoglu, H. & Cobankara, F.K. (2008). Long-term evaluation of the influence of smear layer on the apical sealing ability of MTA. J Endod 34, 1537–1540.Google Scholar