The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Assessment of Smear Layer Removal and Penetration Depth of Root Canal Irrigant Using Different Irrigation Activation Systems: A Comparative Study

Mohan D Pujari, Maneesha Das, Asutosh Das, Dinesh G Kamath, Junu Henry, Arun Shyam, Doaa M Alhaleis

Keywords : Irrigation systems, Root canal, Scanning electron microscopy, Smear layer

Citation Information : Pujari MD, Das M, Das A, Kamath DG, Henry J, Shyam A, Alhaleis DM. Assessment of Smear Layer Removal and Penetration Depth of Root Canal Irrigant Using Different Irrigation Activation Systems: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (4):331-334.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3626

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-06-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the penetration depth and smear layer removal of root canal irrigant using various irrigation activation techniques. Materials and methods: In this investigation, sixty single-rooted premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes were chosen. Diamond burs were used to create an access cavity, and #10 K-file was used to determine the patency. About sixty samples were divided into the following three groups (20 samples in each group), group I: Irrigation with conventional needle, group II: Activation of EndoVac system, group III: Passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI). The efficacy of the smear layer was assessed using a scanning electron microscopy at a ×2000 magnification. One-way ANOVA was used to record and analyze the data. All statistical analyses were performed with a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: At coronal third, the maximum smear layer was removed in group II (1.26 ± 0.02) followed by group III (1.84 ± 0.16) and group I (2.89 ± 0.21). At middle third, smear layer removal was maximum in group I (1.18 ± 0.10) followed by group III (1.72 ± 0.09) and group I (2.66 ± 0.18). At apical third, the more smear layer was removed in group II (1.02 ± 0.01) followed by group III (1.58 ± 0.08) and group I (2.38 ± 0.06). There was a highly significant difference found between the three different irrigation systems at all three levels (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In conclusion, every irrigation device that was evaluated was successful in removing the smear layer from the root canal. However, the EndoVac system group removed a greater amount of smear layer compared with PUI and conventional needle group. Clinical significance: With the goal of promoting cleaning that is beyond the ability of mechanical devices, irrigation is a crucial part of root canal therapy. If an efficient irrigation delivery system is used, the irrigants can reach the working length (WL). This type of distribution system needs to provide a suitable amount of irrigants up to the WL, as well as have enough flow and be effective at debriding the entire canal system.

PDF Share
  1. Estrela C, Estrela CR, Decurcio DA, et al. Anti-microbial efficacy of ozonated water, gaseous ozone, sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine in infected human root canals. Int Endod J 2007;40: 85–93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01185.x.
  2. Paque F, Al-Jadaa A, Kafir A. Hard-tissue debris accumulation created by conventional rotary versus self-adjusting file instrumentation of mandibular molars in mesial root canal systems. Int Endod J 2012;45(5):413–418. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01991.x.
  3. Gade VJ, Sedani SK, Lokade JS, et al. Comparative evaluation of debris removal from root canal wall by using EndoVac and conventional needle irrigation: An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2013;4: 432–436. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.123019.
  4. Ahmetoglu F, Keles A, Yalcin M, et al. Effectiveness of different irrigation systems on smear layer removal: A scanning electron microscopic study. Eur J Dent 2014;8(1):53–57. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.126241.
  5. Saber Sel D, Hashem AA. Efficacy of different final irrigation activation techniques on smear layer removal. J Endod 2011;37:1272–1275. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.06.007.
  6. Krell KV, Johnson RJ, Madison S. Irrigation patterns during ultrasonic canal instrumentation. Part I. K-type files. J Endod 1988;14:65–68. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(88)80003-7.
  7. Torabinejad M, Khademi AA, Babagoli J, et al. A new solution for the removal of the smear layer. J Endod 2003;29(3):170–175. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200303000-00002.
  8. Birajdar A, Sathe S, Dixit M, et al. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of three different irrigation devices in removal of debris from isthmus: An in vitro study. Endodontology 2016;28:2–6. DOI: 10.4103/0970-7212.184318.
  9. Carvalho AS, Camargo CHR, Valera MC, et al. Smear layer removal by auxiliary chemical substances in biomechanical preparation: A scanning electron microscope study. J Endod 2008;34:1936–1400. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.08.012.
  10. Siqueira JF Jr, Pérez AR, Marceliano-Alves MF, et al. What happens to unprepared root canal walls: A correlative analysis using micro-computed tomography and histology/scanning electron microscopy. Int Endod J 2018;51(5):501–508. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12753.
  11. Lacerda MFLS, Marceliano-Alves MF, Pérez AR, et al. Cleaning and shaping oval canals with 3 instrumentation systems: A correlative micro-computed tomographic and histologic study. J Endod 2017;43(11):1878–1884. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.06.032.
  12. Zuolo ML, Zaia AA, Belladonna FG, et al. Micro-CT assessment of the shaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in oval-shaped canals. Int Endod J 2018;51(5): 564–571. DOI: 10.1111/iej. 12810.
  13. Siu C, Baumgartner JC. Comparison of the debridement efficacy of the EndoVac irrigation system and conventional needle root canal irrigation in vivo. J Endod 2010;36:1782–1785. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.023.
  14. Nielsen BA, Baumgartner JC. Comparison of the EndoVac system to needle irrigation of root canals. J Endod 2007;33:611–615. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.01.020.
  15. Walmsley AD, Williams AR. Effects of constraint on the oscillatory pattern of endosonic files. J Endod 1989;15:189–194. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(89)80233-X.
  16. Blank-Gonçalves LM, Nabeshima CK, Martins GH, et al. Qualitative analysis of the removal of the smear layer in the apical third of curved roots: Conventional irrigation versus activation systems. J Endod 2011;37:1268–1271. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.06.009.
  17. Jiang LM, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, et al. The influence of the ultrasonic intensity on the cleaning efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation. J Endod 2011;37:688–692. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.02.004.
  18. Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J, et al. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod 2009;35:791–804. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.03.010.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.