Comparison of three irrigation methods: SWEEPS, ultrasonic, and traditional irrigation, in smear layer and debris removal abilities in the root canal, beyond the fractured instrument.

Abstract

Background. :This study compared the effectiveness of three irrigation methods in removing smear layer and debris in the presence of the fractured instrument. The three compared irrigation methods were conventional syringe irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation, and SWEEPS (Shock wave enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming) irrigation.Methods and materials: Sixty-three permanent mandibular molars with moderate curvature were included in this experimental study. Mesiobuccal root canals were prepared with Race files (FKG Dentaire. Switzerland) up to #25, 4%. A #30, 6% Race file was used to simulate file fracture 3 mm short of working length. The prepared samples, randomly divided into three groups, and final irrigation was separately done in each group. Group 1 conventional syringe irrigation (CSI) as the control group, Group 2 passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and Group 3 Shock wave enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming or SWEEPS Irrigation (SI). Smear layer and debris removal beyond separated file scored with scanning electron microscope(SEM) images. Data were analyzed using the nonparametric tests to compare the smear layer and debris scores.Result: SWEEPS and passive ultrasonic irrigation significantly removed smear layer and debris, better than conventional syringe irrigation (p<0.001). The smear layer and debris removal efficiency between passive ultrasonic Irrigation and SWEEPS were not significantly different (p = 0.629).Conclusion: In the face of the irretrievably broken instrument in the root canal, passive ultrasonic irrigation and the SWEEPS method can enhance smear layer and debris removal compared to conventional syringe irrigation.