World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Efficacy of 17% Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid and Erbium, Chromium:Yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet Laser on Root Surface Smear Layer Removal: A Comparative In Vitro Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Study

Nivedha Kaliappan, Rajasekar Sundaram, Suganya Selvarangam, Arunmozhi Palaniyandi, Lakshmisree Sankar

Keywords : 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, Erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser, Field emission scanning electron microscope, Root biomodification, Smear layer removal

Citation Information : Kaliappan N, Sundaram R, Selvarangam S, Palaniyandi A, Sankar L. Efficacy of 17% Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid and Erbium, Chromium:Yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet Laser on Root Surface Smear Layer Removal: A Comparative In Vitro Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Study. World J Dent 2023; 14 (9):815-819.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2293

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-10-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of the present study is to analyze the efficacy of root surface smear layer removal between 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (ER, CR:YSGG) laser after root planing. Materials and methods: A total of 30 single-rooted teeth extracted due to periodontal disease were selected and randomly allocated into three groups (n = 10 in each group) and root planing was done at the site of interest with Gracey curettes. Group I was taken as control and treated with 10 mL of normal saline, group II was treated with 17% EDTA, and group III was treated with ER, CR:YSGG laser. The samples were processed, fixed, viewed under a field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM), and analyzed for the presence of a smear layer. The data was statistically analyzed by applying the Kruskal–Wallis test. Results: There was a significant difference (p-value < 0.001) in the efficacy of smear layer removal between all three groups, with mean ± standard deviation of 6.30 ± 0.82 in group I, 4.20 ± 0.63 in group II, and 1.90 ± 0.74 in group III. Conclusion: The root surface smear layer removal is more efficient in the group treated with ER, CR:YSGG laser than 17% EDTA. Clinical significance: Removal of the smear layer on the root surface provides a hospitable environment for periodontal regeneration. It also exposes the collagen fibrils and opens the dentinal tubules, which favors cell migration and attachment.

  1. Rohanizadeh R, LeGeros RZ. Ultrastructural study of calculus-enamel and calculus-root interfaces. Arch Oral Biol 2005;50(1):89–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2004.07.001
  2. Polson AM, Caton J. Factors influencing periodontal repair and regeneration. J Periodontol 1982;53(10):617–625. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1982.53.10.617
  3. Pashley DH. Smear layer: overview of structure and function. Proc Finn Dent Soc 1992;88(Suppl 1):215–224. PMID: 1508877.
  4. Jones WA, O'Leary TJ. The effectiveness of in vivo root planing in removing bacterial endotoxin from the roots of periodontally involved teeth. J Periodontol 1978;49(7):337–342. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1978.49.7.337
  5. Dilsiz A, Aydin T, Yavuz MS. Root surface biomodification with an Er:YAG laser for the treatment of gingival recession with subepithelial connective tissue grafts. Photomed Laser Surg 2010;28(4):511–517. DOI: 10.1089/pho.2009.2584
  6. Mohammadi Z, Shalavi S, Jafarzadeh H. Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid in endodontics. Eur J Dent 2013;7(5 Suppl):S135–S142. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.119091
  7. Shreehari AK, Darekar HS, Borthakur R. A comparative analysis of root surface biomodification with ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid and tetracycline hydrochloride: An in vitro scanning electron microscopic study. Med J Armed Forces India 2016;72(2):145–151. DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2015.03.002
  8. Blomlöf J. Root surface etching at neutral ph promotes periodontal healing. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23(1):50–55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1996.tb00504.x
  9. Takeda FH, Harashima T, Kimura Y, et al. Comparative study about the removal of smear layer by three types of laser devices. J Clin Laser Med Surg 1998;16(2):117–122. DOI: 10.1089/clm.1998.16.117
  10. Aoki A, Miura M, Akiyama F, et al. In vitro evaluation of Er:YAG laser scaling of subgingival calculus in comparison with ultrasonic scaling. J Periodontal Res 2000;35(5):266–277. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0765.2000.035005266.x
  11. Schwarz F, Pütz N, Georg T, et al. Effect of an Er:YAG laser on periodontally involved root surfaces: an in vivo and in vitro SEM comparison. Lasers Surg Med 2001;29:328–335. DOI: 10.1002/lsm.1125
  12. Ishikawa I, Aoki A, Takasaki AA, et al. Morphological analysis of cementum and root dentin after Er : YAG laser irradiation. Lasers Surg Med 2002;85(April):79–85. DOI: 10.1002/lsm.10074
  13. Ishikawa I, Aoki A, Takasaki AA. Potential applications of Erbium:YAG laser in periodontics. J Periodontal Res 2004;39(4):275–285. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.2004.00738.x
  14. Theodoro LH, Zezell DM, Garcia VG, et al. Comparative analysis of root surface smear layer removal by different etching modalities or erbium: Yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser irradiation. A scanning electron microscopy study. Lasers Med Sci 2010;25(4):485–491. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-009-0665-4
  15. Lavu V, Sundaram S, Sabarish R, et al. Root surface bio-modification with erbium lasers- a myth or a reality? Open Dent J 2015;9(1):79–86. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601509010079
  16. Cekici A, Maden I, Yildiz S, et al. Evaluation of blood cell attachment on Er: Yag laser applied root surface using scanning electron microscopy. Int J Med Sci 2013;10(5):560–566. DOI: 10.7150/ijms.5233.
  17. Pitaru S, Gray A, Aubin JE, et al. The influence of the morphological and chemical nature of dental surfaces on the migration, attachment, and orientation of human gingival fibroblasts in vitro. J Periodontal Res 1984;19(4):408–418. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.1984.tb01014.x
  18. Babgi W, Alhajaji M, Al-Mehmadi L, et al. Effect of root conditioning agents hyaluronic acid, EDTA and chlorhexidine on the attachment of human gingival fibroblasts to healthy root surface. Saudi Dent J 2021;33(6):342–347. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.03.009
  19. Fekrazad R, Lotfi G, Harandi M, et al. Comparing fibroblast attachment in root surface scaling with Er, Cr:YSGG laser versus ultrasonic scaler: A SEM study. Microsc Res Tech 2017;80(8):917–922. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.22882.
  20. Fekrazad R, Lotfi G, Harandi M, et al. Evaluation of fibroblast attachment in root conditioning with Er, Cr:YSGG laser versus EDTA: a SEM study. Microsc Res Tech 2015;78(4):317–322. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.22477
  21. Ito K, Nishikata JI, Murai S. Effects of Nd:YAG laser radiation on removal of a root surface smear layer after root planing: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Periodontol 1993;64(6):547–552. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1993.64.6.547
  22. Naghsh N, Birang R, Shafiei F, et al. Comparative evaluation of the effects of CO2 and Er:YAG lasers on smear layer removal and blood cell attachment to tooth root surfaces. J Lasers Med Sci 2020;11(1):74–80. DOI: 10.15171/jlms.2020.13
  23. Porrelli D, Bevilacqua L, Giuliatacchino, et al. In vitro study on conditioned dental root surfaces: Evaluation of wettability, smear layer, and blood clot adhesion. Quintessence Int(Berl) 2021;52(7): 624–634. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.b1044167
  24. Blomlöf L, Jonsson B, Blomlöf J, et al. A clinical study of root surface conditioning with an EDTA gel. II. Surgical periodontal treatment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20(6):566–573. PMID: 11203593.
  25. Grover HS, Yadav A, Nanda P. Periodontology & implant dentistry a comparative evaluation of the efficacy of citric acid, ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid (EDTA) and tetracycline hydrochloride as root biomodification agents: an in vitro SEM study. J Ad Periodontol Implant Dent 2011;3(2):73–78. DOI: 10.5681/jpid.2011.014
  26. Garg J, Maurya R, Gupta A, et al. An in vitro scanning electron microscope study to evaluate the efficacy of various root conditioning agents. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2015;19(5):520–524. DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.167168
  27. Shewale A, Gattani D. A novel root biomodifier containing chlorhxidine and EDTA–an ESEM analysis. Int J Curr Res 2015;7(8):19143–19146.
  28. Liu X, Mao M, Ma T. The effect of EDTA root conditioning on periodontal surgery outcome: A meta-analysis. Quintessence Int (Berl) 2016;47(10):833–841. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a36571
  29. Blomlöf L, Bergman E, Forsgårdh A, et al. A clinical study of root surface conditioning with an EDTA gel. I. Nonsurgical periodontal treatment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2000;20(6):560–565. PMID: 11203592.
  30. Fekrazad R, Lotfi G, Harandi M, et al. Root surface etching at neutral pH promotes periodontal healing. J Periodontol 2015;19(4):317–322. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.22882
  31. Jalaluddin M, Ramanna PK, Naseema DA, et al. Impact of different root conditioning agents on periodontally affected root surface: a scanning electron microscope study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(8):863–867. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2928
  32. Hakki SS, Korkusuz P, Berk G, et al. Comparison of Er,Cr:YSGG laser and hand instrumentation on the attachment of periodontal ligament fibroblasts to periodontally diseased root surfaces: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 2010;81(8):1216–1225. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.090715
  33. Poormoradi B, Torkzaban P, Gholami L, et al. Effect of Er,Cr (YSGG laser root conditioning on the success of root coverage with subepithelial connective tissue graft): a randomized clinical trial with a 6-month follow-up. J Dent (Tehran) 2018;15(4):230–239. PMID: 30405732.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.