Investigation of the effectiveness of sonic, ultrasonic and new laser-assisted irrigation activation methods on smear removal and tubular penetration

Comparison of the removal of intracanal medicaments used in regenerative endodontics from root canal system using needle, ultrasonic, sonic, and laser-activated irrigation systems

This study aimed to compare the syringe-needle irrigation (SNI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), EDDY, and shock wave-enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming (SWEEPS) techniques regarding calcium hydroxide and double antibiotic paste removal from the root canal in regenerative endodontic treatments. Eighty single-rooted human teeth were decoronated and enlarged up to #100 to stimulate the immature tooth model. Root canals were irrigated with 1.5% sodium hypochlorite followed by saline solution according to the regenerative endodontic treatment protocol. Dressed teeth were divided into 2 main groups regarding the used intracanal medicaments. Calcium hydroxide and double antibiotic paste were introduced to the canals, and teeth were stored for 3 weeks. Each medicament group was divided into 4 subgroups according to the activation techniques. Medicaments were removed using a 17% EDTA solution. Teeth were split longitudinally into two parts. The remaining medicaments were evaluated under a stereo microscope with a scoring system. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Regardless of the used irrigation activation systems, there was no statistically significant difference between the removal of the CH and DAP from the root canal (P>0.05). While SWEEPS had the highest ability regarding the removal of intracanal medicaments, syringe-needle irrigation had the lowest (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between PUI and EDDY (P>0.05). Complete removal of intracanal medicaments could not be achieved with any techniques. SWEEPS technology was more effective in removing intracanal medicaments in regenerative endodontic treatments compared to the sonic and ultrasonic irrigation activation systems.

Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ultrasonically-activated irrigation (UAI) is effective in root canal irrigation but may damage canal walls. EDDY is a sonic activation system with flexible working tips that cause no harm to dentinal walls. This review explores the intracanal cleaning efficacy of EDDY compared with UAI in vitro.

METHODS

The systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021235826). A literature search was conducted in six electronic databases. In vitro studies that compared the removal of smear layer, debris, soft tissue or microbes in root canals between EDDY and UAI were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed. Meta-analyses were conducted on smear layer removal and debris elimination with the standardized mean difference (SMD). Heterogeneity was measured using the I² test and the Chi² test. The random-effect model was used when I² > 50%, or p < 0.1, otherwise the fixed-effect model was applied. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

19 articles were included in this systematic review and 7 articles were included in meta-analyses. Meta-analyses on smear layer removal showed unimportant differences between EDDY and UAI at any canal third (coronal [SMD = 0.08, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -0.29 to 0.45; p = 0.44, I² = 0%]; middle [SMD = 0.02, 95% CI: -0.44 to 0.47; p = 0.94, I² = 0%]; apical [SMD = 0.01, 95%CI: -0.35 to 0.38; p = 0.70, I² = 0%]). Meta-analyses on debris removal evaluated by scanning electron microscope (coronal [SMD = 0.03, 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.46; p = 0.27, I² = 23%]; middle [SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.83 to 0.35; p = 0.80, I² = 0%]; apical [SMD = 0.24, 95%CI: -0.20 to 0.67; p = 0.36, I² = 2%]) and micro-CT (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI: -0.67 to 1.40; p = 0.03, I² = 70%) both found insignificant differences. No meta-analysis was undertaken on soft-tissue removal and disinfection due to the various study designs, but the qualitative analyses implied that EDDY achieved similar performance to UAI in both aspects.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence indicated that EDDY was comparable to UAI in removing smear layer, debris, soft tissue and microbes ex vivo. Considering UAI may damage canal walls, EDDY might be a substitute for UAI in irrigation activation. But more randomized clinical trials are required to explore the clinical extrapolation of the results in this review.