|
An in vitro comparative assessment of manual hand file, rotary protaper ni-ti, erbium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser, canal brush, and ultrasound methods for smear layer removal
Prabu Mahin Syed Ismail1, Abdul Majeed AlMogbel2, Ritu Priya3, Nandita Bansal4, Sudha Mattigatti5, Asha Nara6, Faris Jaser AlMutairi7
1 Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry in Al-RASS, Qassim University, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia
2 Orthodontic Demonstrator, Department of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Al-Qassim Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
3 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India
4 Department Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, DY Patil Dental School, Pune, Maharashtra, India
5 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, School of Dental Sciences, Karad, Maharashtra, India
6 Department of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Rural Dental College, PMT-PIMS, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra, India
7 Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Al Qassim Region, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Correspondence Address:
Nandita Bansal
Department Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, DY Patil Dental School, Lohegaon, Pune, Maharashtra
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/aam.aam_115_20
|
|
Background: Selection of instruments is important to prevent any complications such as ledge formation and instrument breakage. The main drawback linked with instrumentation is smear layer formation. Objectives: This study was done for comparison of manual hand file, rotary ProTaper Ni-Ti, erbium:yttrium–aluminum–garnet (Er:YAG) laser, ultrasound, and CanalBrush (CB) methods for smear layer removal. Methodology: Sixty freshly extracted single-rooted mandibular first premolars extracted for orthodontic treatment purpose were selected and classified into six groups. Group I was negative control in which no final agitation of irrigant was performed. In Group II, solution activation was performed with ProTaper Universal System, in Group III, solution activation was done with canal brush, in Group IV, ultrasound activation was done, in Group V, solution agitation was performed with Er:YAG laser agitation, and in Group VI, canal preparation with hand files was performed. Smear layer score was evaluated after canal preparation with each method. Results: Score 1 was seen in 3 (30%) in Group IV and 6 (60%) in Group V, score 2 was seen in 3 (30%) in Group I, 8 (80%) in Group II, 7 (70%) in Group III, 5 (50%) in Group IV, 3 (30%) in Group V, and 4 (40%) in Group VI. Score 3 was observed in 7 (70%) in Group I, 2 (20%) in Group II, 3 (70%) in Group III, 2 (20%) in Group IV, 1 (10%) in Group V, and 6 (60%) in Group VI. A statistically significant difference was found in smear layer removal score in all groups (P < 0.05) except between Group I versus VI (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Complete removal of the smear layer was not observed in any of the methods used in the study; however, Er: YAG laser was found to be better as compared to other methods.
|
