IMPACT OF CONTRACTED ACCESS ON IRRIGANT DELIVERY AND DEBRIS REMOVAL IN MANDIBULAR MOLARS: AN SEM EVALUATION.

Main Article Content

Dr. Somnath Chakraborty

Keywords

Contracted endodontic access cavity, Debridement efficacy, Laser-activated irrigation, Ultrasonic-activated irrigation, Sonic-activated irrigation, Traditional endodontic access cavity, Mandibular molars

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate and compare the debridement efficacy of laser-activated (LA), ultrasonic-activated (UA), and sonic-activated (SA) irrigation in the distal canals of mandibular molars with either contracted (CEC) or traditional (TEC) endodontic cavity designs, using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). 
Materials and methods: Sixty extracted mandibular first molars were randomly divided into TEC and CEC groups (n=30 each). Following CBCT assessment and instrumentation to #30/0.06 with NaOCl and EDTA irrigation, canals in each group were further randomized (n=10 per subgroup) for final irrigation with NaOCl/EDTA/NaOCl activated by LA, UA, or SA. Decoronated distal roots were split, and SEM assessed debris removal. Statistical analysis used an unpaired t-test. 
Results: Overall, debris scores were comparable between TEC and CEC groups across all canal levels. Intergroup analysis revealed that LA irrigation resulted in significantly greater debris removal at the coronal, middle, and apical thirds compared to UA and SA, regardless of the cavity design. 
Conclusion: Debridement efficacy in the distal roots of mandibular molars with CEC was similar to TEC, independent of the irrigation activation system used. However, LA consistently demonstrated superior debris removal in both cavity designs. 
Clinical significance: While CEC preserves pericervical dentin, this study indicates that its reduced size does not compromise debridement efficacy compared to TEC. Furthermore, laser activation appears to be a more effective irrigation strategy in both cavity designs, informing clinical decisions regarding access cavity preparation and irrigation protocols for optimal canal cleaning. 

Abstract 72 | pdf Downloads 37

References

1) Ørstavik, D., & Haapasalo, M. (2011). Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and medicaments. In Ingle's Endodontics (pp. 363-391). PMPH-USA.
2) Haapasalo, M., Shen, Y., Qian, W., & Gao, Y. (2005). Irrigation in endodontics. British Dental Journal, 198(1), 3-12.
3) Krasner, P., & Rankow, H. J. (2004). Anatomy of the pulp-chamber floor. Journal of Endodontics, 30(1), 5-16.
4) Reeh, E. S., Douglas, W. H., & Messer, H. H. (1989). Stiffness of endodontically treated teeth related to restoration technique. Journal of Dental Research, 68(11), 1540-1544.
5) Tamse, A. (2006). Vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth: diagnostic signs and clinical management. Endodontic Topics, 13(1), 84-102.
6) Krishan, K. S., Vidhyadharan, S., Loganathan, P., & Manikandan, P. (2014). Conservative endodontic access cavity: a review. Journal of Conservative Dentistry, 17(6), 501-517.
7) Rover, G., Rossi-Fedele, G., de-Deus, G., & Silva, E. J. N. L. (2017). Influence of conservative access cavities on root canal detection, negotiation, and shaping: a systematic review. Journal of Endodontics, 43(12), 1993-1998.
8) Paqué, F., Zehnder, M., & Lussi, A. (2012). Microtomography-based quantitative evaluation of debris and smear layer remaining in the root canal system after rotary instrumentation and different irrigation regimens. International Endodontic Journal, 45(1), 55-63.
9) Siqueira Jr, J. F., & Rôças, I. N. (2005). Clinical implications and microbiology of bacterial persistence after treatment procedures. Journal of Endodontics, 31(1), 1-8.
10) van der Sluis, L. W. M., Wu, M. K., & Wesselink, P. R. (2007). A comparison of two hand-operated irrigation methods. International Endodontic Journal, 40(12), 935-941.
11) Ahmad, M., Pitt Ford, T. R., & Crum, L. A. (1987). Acoustic streaming in the root canal. Journal of Endodontics, 13(11), 490-499.
12) Plotino, G., Grande, N. M., Mercade, M., Ibiza, A., & Garcia, A. N. (2007). Efficacy of different irrigation systems on removal of debris and smear layer from root canals: a scanning electron microscopy study. Journal of Endodontics, 33(10), 1213-1216.
13) Nielsen, R., Baumgartner, J. C., & Mader, C. L. (2010). Evaluation of the efficacy of a new laser system for removal of the smear layer and debris from root canals. Journal of Endodontics, 36(9), 1535-1538.
14) Vertucci, F. J. (1984). Root canal anatomy of the human permanent teeth. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, 58(5), 589-599.
15) Arslan, H., Topcuoglu, H. S., Aktemur Turan, M., & Keles, A. (2021). Comparison of the efficacy of different irrigation activation systems in removing calcium hydroxide from simulated internal root resorption cavities: A scanning electron microscopy study. Scanning, 2021, 6632539.
16) De-Deus, G., Barino, B., Gurgel-Filho, F., Souza, E. M., & Fidel, R. A. S. (2011). Impact of rotary versus reciprocating instrumentation on apical debris extrusion and irrigant penetration in flattened root canals. Journal of Endodontics, 37(2), 216-220.
17) Peters, O. A., Schönenberger, K., & Laib, A. (2001). Effects of four irrigants on root canal dentin assessed by scanning electron microscopy. Journal of Endodontics, 27(1), 1-5.
18) Hülsmann, M., Peters, O. A., & Dummer, P. M. H. (2009). Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endodontic Topics, 16(1), 1-29.
19) Bürklein, S., Schäfer, E., & Donnermeyer, D. (2012). Influence of different irrigant activation methods on the removal of debris and smear layer from simulated root canal irregularities: a scanning electron microscopy study. Journal of Endodontics, 38(5), 662-666.
20) Carvalho, M. A. C., Zuolo, M. L., Antoniazzi, J. H., Mohammadi, Z., & Nelson-Filho, P. (2016). Effectiveness of different irrigation protocols with or without auxiliary agitation methods on the removal of intracanal medicaments: A systematic review of in vitro studies. Journal of Endodontics, 42(6), 862-871.