FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal from conservatively shaped canals: laser activated irrigation (PIPS and SWEEPS) compared to sonic and passive ultrasonic activation-an ex vivo study.

BACKGROUND: Irrigation of the pulp space is a mandatory step to get rid of all its organic and inorganic content. Activation of the irrigants play a key role in the era of minimally invasive endodontics. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of different irrigants activation methods in removing the smear layer at 1, 3, 5 and 8 mm from the apex from conservatively shaped canals. METHODS: Eighty-five human mandibular premolars were selected. Specimens were shaped to TruShape 25/.06 and divided into 5 groups (1 control and 4 test groups) according to the final activation technique (EndoActivator, EA), Ultrasonic (EndoUltra, PUI) and Laser (PIPS and SWEEPS). EDTA (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) followed by NaOCl (Sodium Hypochlorite) and again EDTA were activated for each test group. Specimens were then split longitudinally and observed by Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM). Blinded evaluation of the presence of smear layer was performed at 1000X magnification, according to a 5-score index system. Comparison between groups were analysed statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric analysis of variance. Bonferroni multiple comparison tests were used. RESULTS: At 1 mm only PIPS and SWEEPS performed better than the control group. At 3, 5 and 8 mm from the apex, every activation technique showed statistically significant reduction of smear layer when compared to the control group. PIPS and SWEEPS obtained better cleanliness result compared to EA, while only PIPS was superior to PUI in terms of cleanliness. CONCLUSIONS: PIPS and SWEEPS showed the best results in conservative canal preparations. Nowadays, contemporary rotary instruments allow fast and minimally invasive shaping of the endodontic space. In this scenario irrigants' activation may be regarded as a mandatory step to a favourable clinical outcome.

Accuracy of an electronic apex locator in the retreatment of teeth obturated with plastic or cross-linked gutta-percha carrier-based materials: an ex vivo study.

INTRODUCTION: This ex vivo study evaluated the accuracy of the Root ZX electronic apex locator (EAL) (J Morita Corp, Kyoto, Japan) in determining the working length during retreatment of canals sealed with 2 different carrier-based obturating materials (ProTaper Obturator [Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland] and GuttaCore [Dentsply Maillefer]) and also evaluated whether they influenced its accuracy differently. METHODS: Fifty extracted single-rooted human teeth with sound apices were selected for the study. We measured canals with the direct visual technique using a #10 K-file and shaped them with ProTaper Universal instruments (Dentsply Maillefer) up to this predetermined length. After instrumentation, we determined the canal length again using the visual technique (direct length [DL]). This value was considered the "reference point." Specimens were then placed in a tooth holder (Pro-Train; Simit Dental, Mantova, Italy), and the canal length was electronically measured (electronic length 1 [EL1]). Specimens were then obturated with ProTaper Obturators (group 1, n = 25) and GuttaCore (group 2, n = 25). Seven days later, a new electronic length was determined (electronic length 2 [EL2]) during retreatment procedures in the presence of the obturating material. EL1 and EL2 values were compared with DL using the Bland and Altman method. The different influences of the tested materials on the accuracy of the EAL were calculated with repeated measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Both EL1 and EL2 values provided a statistically significant overestimation of the actual canal length (DL [P < .05]), with the EL2 values higher from DL. The 2 different materials did not influence the accuracy of the EAL differently (P = .486). CONCLUSIONS: The measurements obtained with the EAL tested during orthograde retreatments can lead clinicians to overinstrumentation and consequent overfilling of the endodontic space.