RESUMEN
AIM: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the penetration depth and smear layer removal of root canal irrigant using various irrigation activation techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this investigation, sixty single-rooted premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes were chosen. Diamond burs were used to create an access cavity, and #10 K-file was used to determine the patency. About sixty samples were divided into the following three groups (20 samples in each group), group I: Irrigation with conventional needle, group II: Activation of EndoVac system, group III: Passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI). The efficacy of the smear layer was assessed using a scanning electron microscopy at a ×2000 magnification. One-way ANOVA was used to record and analyze the data. All statistical analyses were performed with a significance level of p < 0.05. RESULTS: At coronal third, the maximum smear layer was removed in group II (1.26 ± 0.02) followed by group III (1.84 ± 0.16) and group I (2.89 ± 0.21). At middle third, smear layer removal was maximum in group I (1.18 ± 0.10) followed by group III (1.72 ± 0.09) and group I (2.66 ± 0.18). At apical third, the more smear layer was removed in group II (1.02 ± 0.01) followed by group III (1.58 ± 0.08) and group I (2.38 ± 0.06). There was a highly significant difference found between the three different irrigation systems at all three levels (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, every irrigation device that was evaluated was successful in removing the smear layer from the root canal. However, the EndoVac system group removed a greater amount of smear layer compared with PUI and conventional needle group. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: With the goal of promoting cleaning that is beyond the ability of mechanical devices, irrigation is a crucial part of root canal therapy. If an efficient irrigation delivery system is used, the irrigants can reach the working length (WL). This type of distribution system needs to provide a suitable amount of irrigants up to the WL, as well as have enough flow and be effective at debriding the entire canal system. How to cite this article: Pujari MD, Das M, Das A, et al. Assessment of Smear Layer Removal and Penetration Depth of Root Canal Irrigant Using Different Irrigation Activation Systems: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(4):331-334.
Asunto(s)
Microscopía Electrónica de Rastreo , Irrigantes del Conducto Radicular , Preparación del Conducto Radicular , Capa de Barro Dentinario , Irrigación Terapéutica , Irrigantes del Conducto Radicular/administración & dosificación , Humanos , Irrigación Terapéutica/métodos , Irrigación Terapéutica/instrumentación , Preparación del Conducto Radicular/métodos , Preparación del Conducto Radicular/instrumentación , Diente Premolar , Cavidad Pulpar , Técnicas In VitroRESUMEN
AIM: The purpose of the current study was to evaluate Titanium and Bioneck TRI implant-abutment interfaces for microgaps and microbiological leakage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro experiment, 40 dental implants were split into two groups, each of which had 20 samples. Group I: Titanium dental implant, group II: Bioneck TRI. E. coli strain was cultivated in MacConkey media for 24 hours at 37°C. To achieve a bacterial concentration of 1 × 108 colony-forming units per mL at 0.5 scale of MacFarland, the brain-heart infusion (BHI) broth was injected. The CFU count was done to evaluate the microbial leakage. The parts were first submerged, carefully cleaned in an ultrasonic bath, and then installed using a digital torque meter with a 20 N/cm preload. These were attached to a stub of approximately 13 mm using carbon tape, and the microgap evaluation was performed using a scanning electron microscope at a magnification of x1000. Unpaired t-test was used for the calculated data's statistical analysis. The p-value less than 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: The maximum microbial leakage was in Bioneck TRI implants (10000 ± 0.01) followed by Titanium dental implants (8.60 ± 3.16). The mean difference was 9991.40 and there was a statistically significant difference found between the two different groups. The maximum microgap was found in the Bioneck TRI implants (9.72 ± 0.96), followed by Titanium dental implant (6.82 ± 1.10) and there was a statistically significant difference was found between the groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The present study concluded that the microorganisms can infiltrate the microgap between the implant and abutment interface. When compared with Titanium dental implants, Bioneck TRI implants showed significantly higher levels of microbial leakage. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A microgap between the implant and abutment connection might operate as a bacterial source, may produce inflammation, even osseointegration in danger, and subsequently alter clinical and histological parameters. Therefore, having an understanding of the compatible components aids in overcoming treatment planning challenges.