The Effect of Sonic Activation Tip Placement and Root Canal Irrigants On Smear Layer Removal

Josephine Amanda Karnady  -  Universitas Trisakti, Indonesia
Bernard Ongki Iskandar*  -  Universitas Trisakti, Indonesia
Anastasia Elsa Prahasti    -  Universitas Trisakti, Indonesia
Loes Djimahit Sjahruddin  -  Universitas Trisakti, Indonesia

(*) Corresponding Author
DOI: 10.30659/odj.12.3.310-316

Background: Root canal preparation produces smear layer. Smear layer removal is mandatory before obturation, which could be achieved by using root canal irrigants such as EDTA 17% and maleic acid 7%. As reported in previous research, irrigant solutions combined with sonic irrigation systems can remove the smear layer. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of irrigation solution with sonic activation tip placement at 2 mm and 4 mm from working length within 30 seconds in eliminating the smear layer in the apical third of the root canal.

Method: 120 extracted single-rooted premolars decoronated and prepared with reciprocating file (#25/06), then randomly divided into six groups for final irrigation. Group 1: EDTA 17% + activation tip 2 mm from working length, Group 2: Maleic acid 7% + activation tip 2 mm from working length, Group 3: Distilled water + activation tip 2 mm from working length, Group 4: EDTA 17% + activation tip 4 mm from working length, Group 5: Maleic acid 7% + activation tip 4 mm from working length, Group 6: Distilled water + activation tip 4 mm from working length. Teeth were split into half using chisel and mallet and observed by Scanning Electron Microscope with 1000x magnification.

Result: Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant differences among the groups (p<0.001).

Conclusion: Sonic activation tip placement influences the cleanliness of the apical third of the root canal

Keywords: EDTA; maleic acid; smear layer; sonic activation; tip placement

  1. Uroz-Torres D, González-Rodríguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM. Effectiveness of the EndoActivator System in Removing the Smear Layer after Root Canal Instrumentation. J Endod. 2010 Feb;36(2):308–11.
  2. Machado R, da Silva I, Comparin D, de Mattos BAM, Alberton LR, da Silva Neto UX. Smear layer removal by passive ultrasonic irrigation and 2 new mechanical methods for activation of the chelating solution. Restor Dent Endod. 2021;46(1).
  3. Kaushal R, Bansal R, Malhan S. A comparative evaluation of smear layer removal by using ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid, citric acid, and maleic acid as root canal irrigants: An in vitro scanning electron microscopic study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2020;23(1):71.
  4. Ballal NV, Kundabala M, Bhat S, Rao N, Rao BSS. A comparative in vitro evaluation of cytotoxic effects of EDTA and maleic acid: Root canal irrigants. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2009 Oct;108(4):633–8.
  5. Al-rujaib BA, Zaghloul MH, Reda A, Badr AE. Efficacy of Different Endodontic Irrigant Activation Systems on Smear Layer Removal and Canal Cleanliness: Comparative Scanning Electron Microscopic Study. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2022 Feb 25;10(D):295–302.
  6. Chaudhry S, Yadav S, Talwar S, Verma M. Effect of EndoActivator and Er,Cr:YSGG laser activation of Qmix, as final endodontic irrigant, on sealer penetration: A Confocal microscopic study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;0–0.
  8. İnce Yusufoglu S, Keskin NB, Saricam E, Bozkurt DA. Comparison of apical debris extrusion using EDDY, passive ultrasonic activation and photon‐initiated photoacoustic streaming irrigation activation devices. Australian Endodontic Journal. 2020 Dec 3;46(3):400–4.
  9. Azim AA, Aksel H, Margaret Jefferson M, Huang GTJ. Comparison of sodium hypochlorite extrusion by five irrigation systems using an artificial root socket model and a quantitative chemical method. Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Mar 26;22(2):1055–61.
  10. Peeters HH, Silitonga F, Zuhal Lavi. Application of artificial intelligence in a visual-based fluid motion estimator surrounding a vibrating EDDY® tip. G Ital Endodon. 2022;36(1):151–9.
  11. Kaya S, Adıgüzel Ö, Uysal İ, Ganidağlı Ayaz S. Effectiveness of Three Different Application Times of 17% EDTA and 7% Maleic Acid Irrigation Agents on the Removal of Debris and Smear Layer: A Scanning Electron Microscope Study. International Dental Research. 2011 Aug 15;1(2):48.
  12. Kuah HG, Lui JN, Tseng PSK, Chen NN. The Effect of EDTA with and without Ultrasonics on Removal of the Smear Layer. J Endod. 2009 Mar;35(3):393–6.
  13. Prado M, Gusman H, Gomes BPFA, Simão RA. Scanning Electron Microscopic Investigation of the Effectiveness of Phosphoric Acid in Smear Layer Removal When Compared with EDTA and Citric Acid. J Endod. 2011 Feb;37(2):255–8.
  14. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276–82.
  15. Nischith K, Srikumar G, Razvi S, Chandra RV. Effect of Smear Layer on the Apical Seal of Endodontically Treated Teeth: An ex vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2012 Feb;13(1):23–6.
  16. Mullick T, Ballal NV. Effect of Glycolic Acid, Maleic Acid, and EDTA in the Removal of Smear Layer from Root Canal Dentin. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr. 2023;23.
  17. CALT S, SERPER A. Time-Dependent Effects of EDTA on Dentin Structures. J Endod. 2002 Jan;28(1):17–9.
  18. Kaushal R, Bansal R, Malhan S. A comparative evaluation of smear layer removal by using ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid, citric acid, and maleic acid as root canal irrigants: An in vitro scanning electron microscopic study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2020;23(1):71.
  19. Urban K, Donnermeyer D, Schäfer E, Bürklein S. Canal cleanliness using different irrigation activation systems: a SEM evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Dec 9;21(9):2681–7.
  20. Chu X, Feng S, Zhou W, Xu S, Zeng X. Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2023 Mar 17;23(1):155.
  21. Swimberghe RCD, De Clercq A, De Moor RJG, Meire MA. Efficacy of sonically, ultrasonically and laser‐activated irrigation in removing a biofilm‐mimicking hydrogel from an isthmus model. Int Endod J. 2019 Apr 29;52(4):515–23.
  22. Bao P, Liu H, Yang L, Zhang L, Yang L, Xiao N, et al. In vitro efficacy of Er:YAG laser-activated irrigation versus passive ultrasonic irrigation and sonic-powered irrigation for treating multispecies biofilms in artificial grooves and dentinal tubules: an SEM and CLSM study. BMC Oral Health. 2024 Feb 22;24(1):261.
  23. Kishen A. Advanced Therapeutic Options to Disinfect Root Canals. In 2015. p. 327–55.
  24. Silva PB, Krolow AM, Pilownic KJ, Casarin RP, Lima RKP, Leonardo R de T, et al. Apical Extrusion of Debris and Irrigants Using Different Irrigation Needles. Braz Dent J. 2016 Apr;27(2):192–5.
  25. Poggio C, Dagna A, Chiesa M, Scribante A, Beltrami R, Colombo M. Effects of NiTi Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments on Debris and Smear Layer Scores: An SEM Evaluation. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2014 Sep 30;12(3):256–62.
  26. Silva EJNL, Peña‐Bengoa F, Ajuz NC, Vieira VTL, Martins JNR, Marques D, et al. Multimethod analysis of large‐ and low‐tapered single file reciprocating instruments: Design, metallurgy, mechanical performance, and irrigation flow. Int Endod J. 2024 May 20;57(5):601–16.
  27. Dagna A, Gastaldo G, Beltrami R, Poggio C. Debris Evaluation after Root Canal Shaping with Rotating and Reciprocating Single-File Systems. J Funct Biomater. 2016 Oct 17;7(4):28.

Lisensi Creative Commons
This work is licensed under a Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.
Contact us: Odonto Dental Journal: Jl. Raya Kaligawe Km.4, PO BOX 1054/SM Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia, 50112. Email: odontodentaljournal@unissula.ac.id
apps