Assessment of Effectiveness of Erbium:Yttrium–Aluminum–Garnet Laser, GentleWave Irradiation, Photodynamic Therapy, and Sodium Hypochlorite in Smear Layer Removal
Sumit Dash, Prabu MS Ismail, Jyotirmay Singh, Muhammad AS Agwan, Kaarunya Ravikumar, Thendral Annadurai
Citation Information :
Dash S, Ismail PM, Singh J, Agwan MA, Ravikumar K, Annadurai T. Assessment of Effectiveness of Erbium:Yttrium–Aluminum–Garnet Laser, GentleWave Irradiation, Photodynamic Therapy, and Sodium Hypochlorite in Smear Layer Removal. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (11):1266-1269.
Aim and objective: To compare the effectiveness of erbium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser, GentleWave irradiation, photodynamic therapy (PDT), and sodium hypochlorite in smear layer removal and dentin permeability with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Materials and methods: Seventy-five recently extracted single-rooted teeth (maxillary second premolars) were randomly divided into 5 groups of 15 each. Group I teeth was the control group in which conventional root canal preparation (RCP) [17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)] was done without laser irradiation, group II teeth underwent RCP and GentleWave™ treatment, group III teeth were subjected to Er:YAG laser irradiation, group IV uses low-level 660 nm (PDT), and group V samples were irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl. All samples were viewed under the SEM. Images at the coronal, middle, and apical part of the root canal were obtained at ×1000. A scoring system for smear layer removal and debris removal scoring was used for analysis. Results: Smear layer removal was significantly higher at different points (coronal, middle, and apical area) in group I, followed by V, IV, II, and group III in declining order (p < 0.05). Intercomparison between the groups at different points indicates a significant difference in smear layer removal score between group I and group V at coronal, middle, and apical third. The result was not significant at coronal third and middle third, between group I and V, II and III, II and IV. The result was not significant at apical third between I and V, II and III, and II and IV (p < 0.05). Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and sodium hypochlorite are effective in smear layer removal followed by the Er-YAG laser technique. Conclusion: Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and NaOCl are effective in smear layer removal. Er:YAG laser-activated RCP was comparatively efficient in cleaning the smear layer and opening dentinal tubules. Clinical significance: Er:YAG laser-activated RCP was comparatively efficient in cleaning the smear layer and it can be used for effective removal of smear layer for clinical usage.
Tissue-dissolving capacity and antibacterial effect of buffered and unbuffered hypochlorite solutions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;94(6):756–762. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2002.128961.
A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod 1975;1(7):238–242. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(75)80226-3.
The effectiveness of different acid irrigating solutions in root canal cleaning after hand and rotary instrumentation. J Endod 2006;32(10):993–997. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.05.016.
The effectiveness of different endodontic irrigation procedures on the removal of the smear layer: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 1989;22(1):21–28. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1989.tb00501.x.
Lasers in endodontics: a review. Int Endod J 2000;33(3):173–185. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2000.00280.x.
Efficacy of argon laser irradiation in removing intracanal debris. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;79(2):221–225. DOI: 10.1016/S1079-2104(05)80287-2.
Bactericidal effect of Nd:YAG laser irradiation on some endodontic pathogens ex vivo. Int Endod J 2006;39(7):547–557. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01115.x.
Multisonic ultracleaning™ in molars with the GentleWave™ system. Oral Health 2015;72–86.
A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of erbium: yttrium–aluminum–garnet and diode lasers in smear layer removal and dentin permeability of root canal after biomechanical preparation – a scanning electron microscopy study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2020;38(1):64–70. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_174_19.
The penetration of root canal sealers into dentinal tubules. A scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 1993;26(5):301–305. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1993.tb00575.x.
Efficacy of Er,Cr:YSGG laser in removing smear layer and debris with two different output powers. Photomed Laser Surg 2014;32(10):527–532. DOI: 10.1089/pho.2014.3766.
Adaptation of injected thermoplasticized gutta-percha in the absence of the dentinal smear layer. Int Endod J 1993;26(2):87–92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1993.tb00548.x.
Effect of laser-activated irrigation of 1320-nanometer Nd:YAG laser on sealer penetration in curved root canals. J Endod 2012;38(4):531–535. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.12.008.
A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of the effectiveness of the F-file versus ultrasonic activation of a K-file to remove smear layer. J Endod 2008;34(10):1243–1245. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.07.006.
Effect of Er:YAG laser treatment on the root canal walls of human teeth: an SEM study. Endod Dent Traumatol 1998;14(6):270–273. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.1998.tb00851.x.
Bacterial retention in canal walls in vitro: Effect of smear layer. J Endod 1994;20:78–82.
Effect of smear layer removal on the diffusion permeability of human roots. J Endod 1994;20(2):83–86. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81187-8.
Evaluation of the dentin changes in teeth subjected to endodontic treatment and photodynamic therapy. Rev Odontol UNESP 2016;45(6):339–343. DOI: 10.1590/1807-2577.12216.
Efficacy of 3 supplementary irrigation protocols in the removal of hard tissue debris from the mesial root canal system of mandibular molars. J Endod 2019;45(7):923–929. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.03.013.
