FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal from conservatively shaped canals: laser activated irrigation (PIPS and SWEEPS) compared to sonic and passive ultrasonic activation-an ex vivo study

Background

Irrigation of the pulp space is a mandatory step to get rid of all its organic and inorganic content. Activation of the irrigants play a key role in the era of minimally invasive endodontics. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of different irrigants activation methods in removing the smear layer at 1, 3, 5 and 8 mm from the apex from conservatively shaped canals.

Methods

Eighty-five human mandibular premolars were selected. Specimens were shaped to TruShape 25/.06 and divided into 5 groups (1 control and 4 test groups) according to the final activation technique (EndoActivator, EA), Ultrasonic (EndoUltra, PUI) and Laser (PIPS and SWEEPS). EDTA (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) followed by NaOCl (Sodium Hypochlorite) and again EDTA were activated for each test group. Specimens were then split longitudinally and observed by Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM). Blinded evaluation of the presence of smear layer was performed at 1000X magnification, according to a 5-score index system. Comparison between groups were analysed statistically using the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric analysis of variance. Bonferroni multiple comparison tests were used.

Results

At 1 mm only PIPS and SWEEPS performed better than the control group. At 3, 5 and 8 mm from the apex, every activation technique showed statistically significant reduction of smear layer when compared to the control group. PIPS and SWEEPS obtained better cleanliness result compared to EA, while only PIPS was superior to PUI in terms of cleanliness.

Conclusions

PIPS and SWEEPS showed the best results in conservative canal preparations. Nowadays, contemporary rotary instruments allow fast and minimally invasive shaping of the endodontic space. In this scenario irrigants’ activation may be regarded as a mandatory step to a favourable clinical outcome.

Curing effectiveness of single-peak and multi-peak led light curing units on tpo-containing resin composites with different chromatic characteristics

This study evaluated the surface microhardness of Lucirin-TPO (TPO) containing resin based composite (RBC) cured with three light-emitting diode (LED) light curing units (LCUs) (two single-peak LED and one multi-peak LED), and two different energy density (ED) (8 J/cm² and 16 J/cm²). Ninety specimens (8 mm wide and 2 mm thick) (n=5), were prepared with three different shades: translucent (T), A2 dentin (A2d), and A4 dentin (A4d). Specimens were subjected to micro-hardness Vickers measurements (Vickers Hardness Number, VHN) on both top and bottom surfaces. Hardness ratio (rHV) was also calculated. Data were analyzed using multifactorial ANOVA and Bonferroni tests (<=0.05). Results indicated that higher ED performed better than lower ED. Multi-peak LED achieved higher VHNs and rHV than single-peak LED when curing a TPO-containing RBC. A4d invariably achieved lower rHV and VHN than T and A2d. Single-peak LED achieved comparable VHNs and rHVs with multi-peak LED only curing A2d and T shades with 16J/cm².

FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal using different irrigant activation methods (EndoActivator, EndoVac, PUI and LAI). An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This study was to compare the efficacy of EndoActivator, EndoVac, PUI, and LAI methods in removing the smear layer from root canals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty single-rooted mandibular premolars were decoronated to a standardized length of 15 mm. Specimens were shaped to ProTaper F4 (Dentsply Maillefer) and irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl at 37 °C. Teeth were divided into six groups (two control groups [n = 10] and four test groups [n = 15]) according to the final irrigation activation/delivering technique (sonic irrigation [EndoActivator], passive ultrasonic irrigation [PUI], negative apical pressure [EndoVac], and laser activated irrigation [LAI]). Root canals were then split longitudinally and observed with field emission scanning electron microscopy to evaluate the presence of smear layer at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. Scores were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

The EndoActivator was significantly more efficient than PUI, LAI, and control groups in removing the smear layer at 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. The EndoVac System removed statistically significantly more smear layer than all groups at 1 mm from the apex. At 5 mm from the apex, EndoActivator and EndoVac removed more smear layer than LAI and control groups. At 5 and 8 mm from the apex, PUI and EndoVac did not differ statistically, but both performed statistically better than the control groups.

CONCLUSION

In our study, none of the activation/delivery systems completely removed the smear layer from the root canal walls; nevertheless, EV and EA showed, respectively, statistically significant better results at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm and 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex.

Composition and microstructure of MTA and Aureoseal Plus: XRF, EDS, XRD and FESEM evaluation

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the chemical composition and the phases' microstructure of Aureoseal Plus (OGNA, Italy) and ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, USA) and to compare their characteristics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Design: Comparing Aureoseal Plus and ProRoot MTA microstructure by means of several analyses type. The chemical analysis of the two cements was assessed following the UNI EN ISO 196-2 norm. X-Ray fluorescence (XRF) was used to determine the element composition. The crystalline structure was analysed quantitatively using x-ray diffraction (XRD). Powders morphology was evaluated using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) with backscattering detectors, and a field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM). Elemental analysis was performed by energy dispersive x-ray analysis (EDS).

RESULTS

The semi-quantitative XRF analysis showed the presence of heavy metal oxides in both cements. The XRD spectra of the two cements reported the presence of dicalcium silicate, tricalcium silicate, tricalcium aluminate, tetracalcium aluminoferrite, bismuth oxide and gypsum. SEM analysis showed that ProRoot MTA powder is less coarse and more homogeneous than Aureoseal. Both powders are formed by particles of different shapes: round, prismatic and oblong. The EDS analysis showed that some ProRoot MTA particles, differently from Aureoseal, contain Ca, Si, Al and Fe. Oblong particles in ProRoot and Aureoseal are rich of bismuth.

CONCLUSIONS

The strong interest in developing new Portland cement-based endodontic sealers will create materials with increased handling characteristics and physicochemical properties. A thorough investigation on two cement powders was carried out by using XRF, XRD, SEM and EDS analysis. To date there was a lack of studies on Aureoseal Plus. This cement is similar in composition to ProRoot MTA. Despite that it has distinctive elements that could improve its characteristics, resulting in a good alternative to MTA.

Accuracy of an electronic apex locator in the retreatment of teeth obturated with plastic or cross-linked gutta-percha carrier-based materials: an ex vivo study

INTRODUCTION

This ex vivo study evaluated the accuracy of the Root ZX electronic apex locator (EAL) (J Morita Corp, Kyoto, Japan) in determining the working length during retreatment of canals sealed with 2 different carrier-based obturating materials (ProTaper Obturator [Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland] and GuttaCore [Dentsply Maillefer]) and also evaluated whether they influenced its accuracy differently.

METHODS

Fifty extracted single-rooted human teeth with sound apices were selected for the study. We measured canals with the direct visual technique using a #10 K-file and shaped them with ProTaper Universal instruments (Dentsply Maillefer) up to this predetermined length. After instrumentation, we determined the canal length again using the visual technique (direct length [DL]). This value was considered the "reference point." Specimens were then placed in a tooth holder (Pro-Train; Simit Dental, Mantova, Italy), and the canal length was electronically measured (electronic length 1 [EL1]). Specimens were then obturated with ProTaper Obturators (group 1, n = 25) and GuttaCore (group 2, n = 25). Seven days later, a new electronic length was determined (electronic length 2 [EL2]) during retreatment procedures in the presence of the obturating material. EL1 and EL2 values were compared with DL using the Bland and Altman method. The different influences of the tested materials on the accuracy of the EAL were calculated with repeated measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Both EL1 and EL2 values provided a statistically significant overestimation of the actual canal length (DL [P < .05]), with the EL2 values higher from DL. The 2 different materials did not influence the accuracy of the EAL differently (P = .486).

CONCLUSIONS

The measurements obtained with the EAL tested during orthograde retreatments can lead clinicians to overinstrumentation and consequent overfilling of the endodontic space.

A comparative study of smear layer removal and erosion in apical intraradicular dentine with three irrigating solutions: a scanning electron microscopy evaluation

INTRODUCTION

This study compared the efficacy of BioPure MTAD (Dentsply Tulsa, Tulsa, OK), 17% EDTA, and 42% citric acid in endodontic smear layer removal and degree of erosion in the apical third of endodontic canals.

METHODS

Ninety-six extracted single-rooted human teeth were randomized into four groups (n = 24) and instrumented using System GT nickel-titanium rotary instruments (Dentsply Tulsa, Tulsa, OK). Each canal was irrigated with one of the following solutions: BioPure MTAD, 17% EDTA, 42% citric acid, or 5.25% NaOCl (control). Next, all specimens were irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl.

RESULTS

Evaluation by scanning electron microscopy showed no significant differences among test irrigants in removing the smear layer. However, the efficacy of BioPure MTAD and 17% EDTA in removing the smear layer was significantly greater than 5.25% NaOCl (control). The erosive effects of irrigating solutions could not be evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the protocols used in this study were not sufficient to completely remove the smear layer in the apical third of prepared root canals.