The effect of different irrigation activation methods on the penetration of the irrigation solution into the dentinal tubules in teeth with calcium hydroxide applied and oval‐shaped canals: Confocal laser scanning microscope analysis

Abstract

AbstractThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different irrigation techniques including standard needle irrigation (SNI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), EndoActivator (EA), XP‐Endo Finisher (XPF), photon‐induced photoacoustic streaming (PIPS), and shock wave enhanced emission photo‐acoustic streaming (SWEEPS) systems on the penetration of irrigation solutions into dentinal tubules in teeth with calcium hydroxide (CH) applied and oval‐shaped canals by confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Ninety mandibular incisor teeth with oval‐shaped canals were included in this study. After the preparation of teeth using Resiproc Blue R25 (VDW, Munich, Germany) canals were filled with a paste based on CH. The teeth were stored in 100% humidity at a temperature of 37°C for 14 days. According to the irrigation activation systems, the teeth were divided into six groups (n = 15); SNI, PUI, EA, XPF, PIPS, and SWEEPS. In each group, 3 irrigation/activation cycles of 20 s of irrigation and 20 s of activation were performed with the relevant activation method. The root canals were filled with fluorescein sodium (Sigma, Alldrich Co., St. Louis, MO, USA) and activated with the relevant activation method for 30 s. Specimens were sectioned horizontally to 1 ± 0.1 mm at 2, 5, and 8 mm from the apex and then examined under the CLSM. Maximum penetration depth, maximum penetration area and penetration percentage were measured by using Image J software. Data were analyzed using a two‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and posthoc Tukey tests (p = .05). No difference was found between the activation systems in terms of maximum penetration depth and maximum penetration area of irrigation solutions in the apical section (p > .05). The penetration percentage of irrigation solutions was higher in PUI and PIPS compared with EA and XPF at the apical section (p < .05). No difference was found between SNI, PUI, PIPS, and SWEEPS in terms of the penetration percentage of irrigation solutions in all sections (p > .05). The penetration percentage of irrigation solutions was higher in the middle and coronal sections compared to the apical section in EA and XPF (p < .05). Tubule penetration of irrigation solutions in SNI was similar between sections. The Tubule penetration area of irrigation solutions in PUI, EA, XPF, PIPS, and SWEEPS was lower in the apical section than in the middle and coronal sections.Research Highlights The tubule penetration depth and area of the irrigation solutions were similar between the activation systems tested in the apical sections. The Tubule penetration area of irrigation solutions in middle and coronal sections was higher in PUI and PIPS than in SNI.