TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Er:YAG laser and ultrasonic in root canal disinfection under minimally invasive access cavity
AU - Shan, Xiao Yang
AU - Tian, Fu Cong
AU - Li, Jing
AU - Yang, Nan
AU - Wang, Yue Yue
AU - Sun, Hui Bin
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2022/10
Y1 - 2022/10
N2 - The disinfection of root canal through minimally invasive access cavity remains questionable. This in vitro study compared the effectiveness of three disinfection measures including conventional irrigation, ultrasonic assisted irrigation, and erbium:yttrium–aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser assisted irrigation through conventionally or minimally invasive access. Sixty-six extracted maxillary first molars were randomly divided into group 1 conventionally invasive access group (CIA) and group 2 computer-guided minimally invasive access group (MIA). Each group was further randomly divided into three subgroups, (A) conventional irrigation (CI), (B) passive ultrasonic agitation (PUI), and (C) Er:YAG laser activated irrigation (LAI). Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) infection model was established inside all root canals after instrumentation was performed up to ProTaper Universal F2. After various disinfection methods, microbial samples were collected from root canals by paper tip method and cultured, and colony forming units (CFU) values of each sample were calculated. Then the root canals were enlarged to the size of F3, after which dentin debris was collected from the F3 file. After dilution and culturing, the CFU value was calculated for each group. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to test the interaction. The results revealed a significant antagonism (F = 3.394, P = 0.043). The bacterial CFU counts of group B and group C were significantly less than that of group A (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between group B and C (P > 0.05). Additionally, group 2A was better than group 1A (P < 0.05); there was no significant difference between group 1B and group 2B, group 1C and group 2C (P > 0.05). Comparison of the bacterial CFU counts in dentin debris after disinfection, the results revealed a significant antagonism (F = 7.224, P = 0.002), and group C had the least. The disinfection effect of Er:YAG laser or ultrasonic assisted computer-guided minimally invasive access is similar to conventionally invasive access, and Er:YAG laser is better than ultrasonic in removing bacteria from dentinal tubules and is easy to operate, which is more suitable for minimally invasive root canal treatment.
AB - The disinfection of root canal through minimally invasive access cavity remains questionable. This in vitro study compared the effectiveness of three disinfection measures including conventional irrigation, ultrasonic assisted irrigation, and erbium:yttrium–aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser assisted irrigation through conventionally or minimally invasive access. Sixty-six extracted maxillary first molars were randomly divided into group 1 conventionally invasive access group (CIA) and group 2 computer-guided minimally invasive access group (MIA). Each group was further randomly divided into three subgroups, (A) conventional irrigation (CI), (B) passive ultrasonic agitation (PUI), and (C) Er:YAG laser activated irrigation (LAI). Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) infection model was established inside all root canals after instrumentation was performed up to ProTaper Universal F2. After various disinfection methods, microbial samples were collected from root canals by paper tip method and cultured, and colony forming units (CFU) values of each sample were calculated. Then the root canals were enlarged to the size of F3, after which dentin debris was collected from the F3 file. After dilution and culturing, the CFU value was calculated for each group. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to test the interaction. The results revealed a significant antagonism (F = 3.394, P = 0.043). The bacterial CFU counts of group B and group C were significantly less than that of group A (P < 0.05), and there was no significant difference between group B and C (P > 0.05). Additionally, group 2A was better than group 1A (P < 0.05); there was no significant difference between group 1B and group 2B, group 1C and group 2C (P > 0.05). Comparison of the bacterial CFU counts in dentin debris after disinfection, the results revealed a significant antagonism (F = 7.224, P = 0.002), and group C had the least. The disinfection effect of Er:YAG laser or ultrasonic assisted computer-guided minimally invasive access is similar to conventionally invasive access, and Er:YAG laser is better than ultrasonic in removing bacteria from dentinal tubules and is easy to operate, which is more suitable for minimally invasive root canal treatment.
KW - Er:YAG laser
KW - Minimally invasive access disinfection
KW - Root canal treatment
KW - Ultrasonic irrigation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85134505146&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85134505146&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10103-022-03613-0
DO - 10.1007/s10103-022-03613-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 35854018
AN - SCOPUS:85134505146
SN - 0268-8921
VL - 37
SP - 3249
EP - 3258
JO - Lasers in Medical Science
JF - Lasers in Medical Science
IS - 8
ER -