RESUMO
Chemical and mechanical root canal debridement are the primary methods used in endodontic therapy to remove all dead tissue, bacteria, and microbial byproducts from the canal. Sodium hypochlorite, a powerful organic tissue dissolver with a broad spectrum of antibacterial properties, is an excellent choice for disinfecting surfaces. Chelating agents, on the other hand, may be used to remove the inorganic components found on the smear layer. This irrigation method is capable of removing the smear layer; however, it is less effective in the apical third. While using irrigant activation devices, irrigating solutions need to be in direct contact with the whole root canal wall surfaces, especially in the apical portions of tiny root canals. The role of irrigants is extremely important because they help not only to clean the canal but also to allow the seepage of the medicaments into the canal system. Thus, the canal needs to be healthy before the obturation procedure. Nowadays, many irrigants have been studied and hence compilation of the various available sources and their effect has to be studied both in vivo and in vitro. The correlation between the irrigants and the canal cleanliness is of utmost importance, as the success of endodontic root canal treatment depends on its proper activation and characteristics. Hence, this review incorporates the current use of various irrigating solutions and their advantages and disadvantages. In the future, endodontists may employ the novel irrigants and irrigant activation devices that were discovered in this study.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To ensure that endodontic treatment is as effective as possible, it is important to remove any smear layer that forms as part of the instrumentation procedure. This layer might reduce the overall effectiveness of endodontic therapy. AIM OF THE STUDY: For this research, two distinct types of rotary NiTi files were compared: WaveOne Gold (WOG) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and F360 (Komet Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) for its capacity to eliminate trash and the smear layer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups (n=20 each) of 40 mandibular second premolar teeth were employed in this investigation, with each group receiving a random allocation of teeth. The F360 system and the WaveOne Gold system are two sets of instruments. The samples were irrigated with a mixture of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (5.25%) and citric acid (40%). Finally, all samples in the centre of the coronal, middle, and apical thirds were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: F360 instrument showed a statistically significant difference for smear layer removal among all thirds of the root canal whereas WOG resulted in a significant difference when the apical third was compared to the middle and coronal third. Significant differences were found in the middle and apical third in terms of smear layer removal between the two groups. Both F360 and WOG instruments showed statistically significant differences for debris removal among all thirds of the root canal. No significant differences were found in the coronal, middle, and apical third in terms of debris removal between the two groups. CONCLUSION: WOG resulted in cleaner canals compared to the F360 file system at coronal, middle, and apical third.