Comparison of GentleWave system and passive ultrasonic irrigation with minimally invasive and conventional instrumentation against LPS in infected root canals

Efficacy of the GentleWave System in the removal of biofilm from the mesial roots of mandibular molars before and after minimal instrumentation: An ex vivo study

AIM

To compare the efficacy of Enterococcus faecalis biofilm removal using the GentleWave System (GWS) (Sonendo Inc, CA) on non-instrumented versus minimally instrumented root canal systems.

METHODOLOGY

Thirty-four mandibular molars were autoclaved and allocated to four groups: Negative control (n = 5); positive control (n = 5); Group 1: non-instrumentation + GWS (NI + GWS) (n = 12); and Group 2: minimal instrumentation + GWS (MI + GWS) (n = 12). Of 34 samples, 24 samples with Vertucci type 2 configuration within the mesial root of each sample were allocated to Groups 1 and 2 and then matched based on the working length and root canal configuration. After inoculation of samples with E. faecalis for 3 weeks, the GWS was used on Group 1 without any instrumentation and Group 2 after instrumentation of mesial canals until size 20/06v. CFU and SEM analysis were used.

RESULTS

Log10 (CFU/mL) from the positive control, and Group 1 and 2 were 7.41 ± 0.53, 3.41 ± 1.54, and 3.21 ± 1.54, respectively. Both groups showed a statistically significant difference in the reduction of viable E. faecalis cells compared to the positive control (Group 1 [p = .0001] and Group 2 [p < .0001]), whilst showing no significant difference between the two tested groups (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

The use of GWS on the non-instrumented root canal system could be an effective disinfection protocol in removing the biofilm without dentin debris formation.

Cleaning and disinfection of the root canal system provided by four active supplementary irrigation methods

This in vitro study evaluated the bacterial reduction provided by the EndoActivator (EA), Easy Clean (EC), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and XP-Endo Finisher. Eight-four mesial roots of mandibular first molars were instrumented, inoculated with Enterococcus faecalis, and divided into four groups (n. 20). Bacterial reduction in the main canals and dentinal tubules were respectively determined by MTT assays and Live/Dead BackLight technique through confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) at 50, 100, and 150 µm in-depth (n. 10 per group). Statistical analyses were conducted following a significance level of 95% (P < 0.05). A significant statistical difference was just identified between XPF and EC in the main canals. In the dentinal tubules from the main root canals, at 100 and 150 µm in-depths, significant statistical differences were only observed between XPF and EC (P = 0.027) for the former and between XPF and EC (P = 0.011) and XPF and PUI (P = 0.021) for the latter. In the dentinal tubules from the isthmus, at 100 µm in-depth, statistically relevant differences did occur between XPF and EC (P = 0.038) and EC and EA (P = 0.029). At 150 µm in-depth, these differences were only significant by comparing XPF and PUI (P = 0.025) and XPF and EC (P = 0.036). Although no irrigation method could thoroughly disinfect the RCS, bacterial reduction indexes were generally better after using XPF.

Effects of Conservative Access and Apical Enlargement on Shaping and Dentin Preservation with Traditional and Modern Instruments: A Micro-computed Tomographic Study

INTRODUCTION

This ex vivo study aimed to evaluate the shaping abilities and preservation of dentin with traditional and modern instruments after using sizes 25 and 40 in oval canals of mandibular incisors with conservative access.

METHOD

Thirty mandibular incisors with single straight oval canals were selected and assigned into 2 groups (n = 15) according to the instrument system used during preparation, Slim Shaper (SS) plus Apical Shaper (AS) and Protaper Gold (PG). The samples were subjected to micro-computed tomography before and after preparation with sizes 25 and 40. The shaping parameters evaluated included canal volume and surface area, amount of unprepared root canal walls, and reduction in pericervical dentin.

RESULTS

Canal volume and surface area were significantly increased after enlargement with each instrument size (P < .01). The percentage of unprepared areas showed a significant intragroup decrease after using PG F2 and F4 or SS 3 and AS (P < .05). Intergroup comparison showed no significant differences. Pericervical dentin was reduced in all groups. The intragroup comparison only revealed a significant reduction (P < .01) between PG F2 and F4. In addition, a significant decrease in pericervical dentin (P < .05) was observed between PG F4 40/.06 and AS 40/.03. No significant differences were observed between PG F2 25/.08 and SS 3 25/.04.

CONCLUSION

Increasing the instrumentation size from 25 to 40 significantly reduces the percentage of unprepared areas regardless of the system used. In addition, using a modern system with a regressive taper allows the maintenance of pericervical dentin without compromising shaping efficacy in the apical third of the mandibular incisors with oval canals and conservative access.