The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2020 ) > List of Articles


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

Keywords : Laser, Photodynamic therapy, Smear layer,Dentinal permeability

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.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2976

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-02-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


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.

PDF Share
  1. Pashley DH, Michelich V, Kehl T. Dentin permeability: effects of smear layer removal. J Prosthet Dent 1981;46(5):531–537. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90243-2.
  2. Zehnder M, Kosicki D, Luder H, et al. 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.
  3. McComb D, Smith DC. 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.
  4. Pérez-Heredia M, Ferrer-Luque CM, González-Rodríguez MP. 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.
  5. Ciucchi B, Khettabi M, Holz J. 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.
  6. Kimura Y, Wilder-Smith P, Matsumoto K. Lasers in endodontics: a review. Int Endod J 2000;33(3):173–185. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2000.00280.x.
  7. Moshonov J, Sion A, Kasirer J, et al. 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.
  8. Bergmans L, Moisiadis P, Teughels W, et al. 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.
  9. Vandrangi P, Basrani B. Multisonic ultracleaning™ in molars with the GentleWave™ system. Oral Health 2015;72–86.
  10. Dhawan S, Jasuja P, Khurana H, et al. 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.
  11. Okşan T, Aktener BO, Sen BH, et al. 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.
  12. Bolhari B, Ehsani S, Etemadi A, et al. 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.
  13. Gutmann JL. 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.
  14. Moon YM, Kim HC, Bae KS, et al. 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.
  15. Chopra S, Murray PE, Namerow KN. 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.
  16. Takeda FH, Harashima T, Eto JN, et al. 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.
  17. Drake DR, Wiemann AH, Rivera EM, et al. Bacterial retention in canal walls in vitro: Effect of smear layer. J Endod 1994;20:78–82.
  18. Galvan DA, Ciarlone AE, Pashley DH, et al. 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.
  19. Lacerda MF, Lima CO, Lacerda GP, et al. 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.
  20. Chan R, Versiani MA, Friedman S, et al. 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.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.