Assessment of Smear Layer Removal and Penetration Depth of Root Canal Irrigant Using Different Irrigation Activation Systems: A Comparative Study.

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.

Assessment of the Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Three Different Agents on Periodontally Compromised Tooth: An In Vitro Study.

AIM: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the smear layer removal efficacy of three various agents on periodontally compromised tooth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The current study included 75 molar teeth that were extracted due to periodontal disease. After that, 25 samples were randomly assigned using a simple random technique to the three different agent groups, group A: Scaling and root planing (SRP) and application of SofScale agent, group B: SRP and application of QMix agent, group C: SRP and application of MTAD agent. Using a diamond circular saw, the treated portions were divided into horizontal and vertical halves. All samples were viewed under Scanning Electron Microscope. Every tooth was focused at the coronal third, middle third, and apical third portion with a magnification of 1000×. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The smear layer removal efficacy was more in the QMix agent (3.06 ± 0.04) group followed by MTAD agent (3.28 ± 0.09) and SofScale agent (4.14 ± 0.10) group on the root surface. On intra group comparison, there was a statistically significant difference found in all the intra group agents with all the three levels. On inter group evaluation, at coronal third, there was no significant difference found between the different agents. There was a significant difference found between the different agents at middle and coronal third. CONCLUSION: On conclusion, the current investigation found that, the root surfaces treated with QMix shown a greater ability to remove smear layers compared to tooth surfaces treated with MTAD and SofScale agent. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Conventional therapies such as SRP effectively eliminate calculus, plaque, and necrosed cementum; nevertheless, they leave behind a smear layer that could impede normal healing. In an effort to overcome this, root conditioning agents were applied on the root surface to remove the smear layer. The traditional root conditioning agents such as citric acid have certain disadvantages, though, such as an acidic pH that could harm the root surface. As a result, researchers have been looking for biocompatible root conditioning treatments that are more effective. How to cite this article: Singh DK, BS Raj H, Soans CR, et al. Assessment of the Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Three Different Agents on Periodontally Compromised Tooth: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(2):156-159.