SEM Evaluation of Various Intracanal Irrigation Devices on Smear Layer Removal: A Comparative Study

• Published in: The journal of contemporary dental practice Vol. 22; no. 2; pp. 184 - 188
• Main Authors: Thota, Gunaranjan, Khateeb, Shafait U, Pathrose, Sonia P, Kumar, Aparna S, Haribaskar, Sengodan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 01.02.2021
• Subjects: Dentistry
• ISSN: 1526-3711; 1526-3711
• DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3002

AIMThe present study aimed at assessing the effectiveness of different intracanal irrigation devices on the removal of the smear layer. MATERIALS AND METHODSThe recently extracted 80 lower premolars having single canal were chosen for this in vitro study. A round diamond bur was used to gain endodontic access and the root canal was entered with a #15 K-file until the tip was just seen at the apical foramen. Manual instrumentation of root canals of all teeth was done using the step-back method. The samples were later divided randomly into four groups. Later, each sample was exposed to final irrigation by using four different irrigation systems, group 1: conventional needle irrigation, group 2: irrigation with ultrasonic activation, group 3: irrigation with EndoVac system activation, group 4: irrigation with EndoActivator. The samples were next mounted and visualized under scanning electron microscope (SEM) for the absence or presence of the smear layer. RESULTSIrrigation with EndoVac system activation showed the presence of least smear layer (2.40 ± 0.32), followed next by EndoActivator (3.24 ± 0.46) and ultrasonic activation (4.96 ± 0.54) and conventional needle irrigation (5.20 ± 0.10). No statistically significant difference was found in the apical and coronal thirds of the root canal in removal of the smear layer on an intragroup comparison. However, a statistically significant (p < 0.001) difference was seen between the groups at the apical and coronal thirds on an intergroup comparison. CONCLUSIONThis study demonstrated the EndoVac system group to be efficient in removal of the smear layer when compared to the EndoActivator system, ultrasonic activation, and conventional needle irrigation group. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCEThe definitive objective of endodontic therapy is to transform the affected teeth to a healthy and functional state. The irrigants can reach the working length when delivered by an effective irrigation delivery system. This type of delivery system should deliver adequate volume of irrigants all the way up to the working length and have sufficient flow and be efficient at debridement of complete canal system.