Influence of Contracted Endodontic Cavity Design on the Debridement Efficacy of Three Different Irrigant Activation Systems in Human Permanent Mandibular Molars: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis
Citation Information :
Srinivasan V, Jayakumar S, Karunakaran J, Rajkumar J, Solomon V, Thiagarajan A. Influence of Contracted Endodontic Cavity Design on the Debridement Efficacy of Three Different Irrigant Activation Systems in Human Permanent Mandibular Molars: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis. World J Dent 2025; 16 (1):62-68.
Aim: To evaluate the influence of contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) design on debridement efficacy of laser-activated (LA), ultrasonic-activated (UA), and sonic-activated (SA) irrigant systems in the distal canals of human permanent mandibular molars using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis.
Materials and methods: Sixty (N = 60) freshly extracted human intact permanent mandibular first molars were randomly assigned to one of two groups: traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) and CEC (n = 30 per group). A preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan was taken. After access cavity preparation, the canals were instrumented with an Mtwo rotary system up to size #30, 0.06 taper. During instrumentation, each canal was irrigated with 3 mL of 5.25% NaOCl followed by 3 mL of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) for 1 minute. Following cleaning and shaping, samples were randomized for final irrigation into three treatment subgroups: laser, ultrasonic, and sonic (n = 10 per subgroup). Final irrigant activation was done with 5 mL of 5.25% NaOCl, 5 mL of 17% EDTA, and lastly, 5 mL of 5.25% NaOCl using either LA, UA, or SA. All specimens were decoronated, and the distal roots were separated from the mesial using a diamond disk. The distal roots were then split longitudinally and viewed under an SEM for debris removal. Statistical analysis was done using an unpaired t-test.
Results: Overall, debris scores were similar between TEC and CEC at all levels of the root canals. In the intergroup analysis, LA irrigants showed maximum debris removal at all levels of the root canals compared to UA and SA irrigants in both TEC and CEC.
Conclusion: The debridement efficacy of CEC in the distal root of the mandibular molar was comparable to TEC irrespective of the activation system. However, LA irrigants were more efficient in removing debris in both TEC and CEC at the coronal third, middle third, and apical third of the root canal.
Clinical significance: CEC design preserves more pericervical dentin compared to traditional access cavities, thereby increasing fracture resistance. However, the reduced cavity size may pose a challenge in cleaning and shaping of the canal system, which could compromise debridement efficacy. Hence, irrigation activation plays a pivotal role. The findings of this study influence clinical guidelines, helping practitioners decide when and how to use CEC designs and which irrigant activation system to employ for achieving optimal results.
Ruddle CJ. Endodontic triad for success, the role of minimally invasive technology. Dentistry Today 2015;34:78–80. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.844
Saha SG, Sharma V, Bharadwaj A, et al. Effectiveness of various endodontic irrigants on the micro-hardness of the root canal dentin: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11:ZC01–ZC04. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/24018.9472
Naseri M, Eftekhar L, Gholami F, et al. The effect of calcium hydroxide and nano calcium hydroxide on microhardness and superficial chemical structure of root canal dentin: an ex vivo study. J Endod 2019;45:1148–1154. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.06.002
Neelakantan P, Khan K, Hei Ng GP, et al. Does the orifice-directed dentin conservation access design debride pulp chamber and mesial root canal systems of mandibular molars similar to a traditional access design? J Endod 2018;44:274–279. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.10.010
Rocca GT, Krejci I. Crown and post-free adhesive restorations for endodontically treated posterior teeth: from direct composite to endocrowns. Eur J Esthet Dent 2013;8:156–179. PMID: 23712338.
Clark D, Khademi J. Modern molar endodontic access and directed dentin conservation. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54:249–273. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2010.01.001
Dastjerdi MR, Chaijan KA, Tavanafar S. Fracture resistance of upper central incisors restored with different posts and cores. Restor Dent Endod 2015;40:229–235. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2015.40.3.229
Plotino G, Grande NM, Isufi A, et al. Fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth with different access cavity designs. J Endod 2017;43:995–1000. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.01.022
Rover G, Belladona FG, Bortoluzzi EA, et al. Influence of access cavity design on root canal detection, instrumentation efficacy and fracture resistance assessed in maxillary molars. J Endod 2017;43:1657–1662. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.05.006
Silva E, Rover G, Belladonna FG, et al. Impact of contracted endodontic cavities on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of in vitro studies. Clin Oral Invest 2018;22:109–118. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2268-y
Bóveda C, Kishen A. Contracted endodontic cavities: the foundation for less invasive alternatives in the management of apical periodontitis. Endod Top 2015;33:169–186. DOI: 10.1111/etp.12088
Wu MK, R'oris A, Barkis D, et al. Prevalence and extent of long oval canals in the apical third. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;89:739–743. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2000.106344
Andrade-Junior CV, Batista RM, Marceliano-Alves M, et al. Efficacy of a new activation device in irrigant penetration into simulated lateral canals. Eur Endod J 2016;1:1–4. DOI: 10.5152/eej.2016.16003
Duque JA, Duarte MA, Canali LC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of new mechanical irrigant agitating devices for debris removal from the canal and isthmus of mesial roots of mandibular molars. J Endod 2016;43:326–331. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.10.009
Olivi G, DiVito E. Photoacoustic endodontics using PIPSTM: experimental background and clinical protocol. J Laser Health Acad 2012;1:22–25.
Hülsmann M, Rümmelin C, Schäfers F. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative SEM investigation. J Endod 1997;23:301–306. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80410-4
Peters OA, Arias A, Paqué F. A micro-computed tomographic assessment of root canal preparation with a novel instrument, TRUShape, in mesial roots of mandibular molars. J Endod 2015;41:1545–1550. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.06.007
Chu X, Feng S, Zhou W, et al. Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2023;23(1):155. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-02875-6
Rödig T, Döllmann S, Konietschke F, et al. Effectiveness of different irrigant agitation techniques on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Endod 2010;36:1983–1987. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.056
Varela P, Souza E, de Deus G, et al. Effectiveness of complementary irrigation routines in debriding pulp tissue from root canals instrumented with a single reciprocating file. Int Endod J 2018;52:475–483. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13028
Gunduz H, Ozlek E. The effects of laser and ultrasonic irrigation activation methods on smear and debris removal in traditional and conservative endodontic access cavities. Lasers Med Sci 2023;38(1):148. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-023-03816-z
Virdee SS, Seymour DW, Farnell D, et al. Efficacy of irrigant activation techniques in removing intracanal smear layer and debris from mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J 2018;51(6):605. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12877
Klyn SL, Kirkpatrick TC, Rutledge RE. In vitro comparisons of debris removal of the EndoActivator system, the F file, ultrasonic irrigation, and NaOCl irrigation alone after hand-rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars. J Endod 2010;36:1367–1371. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.03.022
Gomes Brenda PFA, Aveiro E, Kishen A. Irrigants and irrigation activation systems in endodontics. Braz Dent J 2023;34(4):1. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440202305577
Uslu G, Gündoğar M, Üngör M, et al. Investigation of the effectiveness of sonic, ultrasonic and new laser-assisted irrigation activation methods on smear removal and tubular penetration. Lasers Med Sci 2023;38(1):30. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-022-03697-8
Tong J, Liu L, Du J, et al. Effect of photon-induced photoacoustic streaming and shock-wave enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming technique on the removal of the smear layer after root canal preparation in curved root canals. J Dent Sci 2023;18(1):157–164. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2022.06.019
Macedo RG, Wesselink PR, Zaccheo F, et al. Reaction rate of NaOCl in contact with bovine dentine: effect of activation, exposure time, concentration and pH. Int Endod J 2010;43:1108. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01785.x
Mancini M, Cerroni L, Palopoli P, et al. 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. BMC Oral Health 2021;21(1):81. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01427-0
Passalidou S, Calberson F, De Bruyne M, et al. Debris removal from the mesial root canal system of mandibular molars with laser-activated irrigation. J Endod 2018;44:1697. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.06.007
Do QL, Gaudin A. The efficiency of the Er:YAG laser and photon-induced photoacoustic streaming (PIPS) as an activation method in endodontic irrigation: a literature review. J Lasers Med Sci 2020;11(3):316–334. DOI: 10.34172/jlms.2020.53
Kamaci A, Aydin B, Erdilek N. The effect of ultrasonically activated irrigation and laser-based root canal irrigation methods on debris removal. Int J Artif Organs 2017;22. DOI: 10.5301/ijao.500064617
Halford A, Ohl CD, Azarpazhooh A, et al. Synergistic effect of microbubble emulsion and sonic or ultrasonic agitation on endodontic biofilm in vitro. J Endod 2012;38(11):1530. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.07.007
van der Sluis LW, Versluis M, Wu MK, et al. Passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: a review of the literature. Int Endod J 2007;40(6):415. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01243.x
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
Gadaalay S, Hariramani SI, Dhore P, et al. Comparative evaluation of efficacy of three different irrigation activation systems in debridement of root canal isthmus: an in vitro study. Endodontology 2017;29(1):39. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_587_20
Raza A, Pasha S, Valli K, et al. Comparison of smear layer removal ability of different agitation systems in the apical third of the root canal using SEM: an in vitro study. Int J Dent Res 2020;5(1):24. DOI: 10.31254/dentistry.2020.5106
Natanasabapathy V, Arul B, Srinivasan V, et al. Removal of accumulated hard tissue debris from mesial root of mandibular molars evaluated using micro-CT–a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Evid Based Dent 2021. DOI: 10.1038/s41432-021-0207-x