Two diode lasers versus ultrasonic activation of EDTA: push-out analysis and penetrability by confocal analysis
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
Texto Completo: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41547-021-00119-w http://hdl.handle.net/11449/230588 |
Resumo: | EDTA solution removes smear layers; this function is more effective when the solution is agitated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the protocol application of two diode lasers, compared with conventional energization or ultrasonic energization of 17% EDTA, evaluating the EDTA and AH Plus penetration capacity with laser confocal microscopy and push-out strength. In this study, human extracted teeth were used. The crowns were removed, and the root canal was prepared with a ProTaper system until the F5 file is reached, and irrigated with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. The roots were randomly distributed in 5 groups (n=10): group control—flood with EDTA; conventional—flood with EDTA and agitation with K#45; ultrasonic—ultrasonic EDTA energization, TheraLase—EDTA energized with diode laser TheraLase surgery (808 nm, 2.8 W, pulsed mode, 20 Hz); and Gemini—EDTA energized with diode laser Gemini (810–980 nm, 2 W, pulsed mode, 50 Hz). The roots were obturated, using the single-cone technique and AH Plus. The EDTA solution was added with Malachite Green and AH Plus with Rhodamine B for evaluation with a laser confocal microscope. Specimens were sectioned in slices, one slice per third root, used in a laser confocal microscope and push-out strength. The data were submitted to normality test, analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dun test, with a 5% level of significance (P < 0.05). The penetrability of EDTA and AH Plus was statistically different between the Ultrasonic, TheraLase, and Gemini groups when compared with other groups. However, when comparing ultrasonic with TheraLase and Gemini, there was no significant difference. In a push-out strength test, there was no significant difference, and the cohesive failures were predominant. In conclusion, the energization of 17% EDTA with any of the diode lasers improved only the penetrability of EDTA and AH Plus. |
id |
UNSP_6ba636ff0a00d22ce7c83fcee6bde991 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/230588 |
network_acronym_str |
UNSP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository_id_str |
2946 |
spelling |
Two diode lasers versus ultrasonic activation of EDTA: push-out analysis and penetrability by confocal analysisEdetic acidLasersSemiconductorUltrasonic therapyEDTA solution removes smear layers; this function is more effective when the solution is agitated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the protocol application of two diode lasers, compared with conventional energization or ultrasonic energization of 17% EDTA, evaluating the EDTA and AH Plus penetration capacity with laser confocal microscopy and push-out strength. In this study, human extracted teeth were used. The crowns were removed, and the root canal was prepared with a ProTaper system until the F5 file is reached, and irrigated with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. The roots were randomly distributed in 5 groups (n=10): group control—flood with EDTA; conventional—flood with EDTA and agitation with K#45; ultrasonic—ultrasonic EDTA energization, TheraLase—EDTA energized with diode laser TheraLase surgery (808 nm, 2.8 W, pulsed mode, 20 Hz); and Gemini—EDTA energized with diode laser Gemini (810–980 nm, 2 W, pulsed mode, 50 Hz). The roots were obturated, using the single-cone technique and AH Plus. The EDTA solution was added with Malachite Green and AH Plus with Rhodamine B for evaluation with a laser confocal microscope. Specimens were sectioned in slices, one slice per third root, used in a laser confocal microscope and push-out strength. The data were submitted to normality test, analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dun test, with a 5% level of significance (P < 0.05). The penetrability of EDTA and AH Plus was statistically different between the Ultrasonic, TheraLase, and Gemini groups when compared with other groups. However, when comparing ultrasonic with TheraLase and Gemini, there was no significant difference. In a push-out strength test, there was no significant difference, and the cohesive failures were predominant. In conclusion, the energization of 17% EDTA with any of the diode lasers improved only the penetrability of EDTA and AH Plus.Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Department of Restorative Dentistry Araraquara Dental School São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rua Humaitá, 1680, SPDepartment of Restorative Dentistry Araraquara Dental School São Paulo State University (UNESP), Rua Humaitá, 1680, SPCNPq: 167248/2018-9Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)Pradelli, Jéssica Arielli [UNESP]Kuga, Milton Carlos [UNESP]Berbert, Fábio Luiz Camargo Vilella [UNESP]2022-04-29T08:40:52Z2022-04-29T08:40:52Z2021-03-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article61-68http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41547-021-00119-wLasers in Dental Science, v. 5, n. 1, p. 61-68, 2021.2367-2587http://hdl.handle.net/11449/23058810.1007/s41547-021-00119-w2-s2.0-85126525637Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengLasers in Dental Scienceinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-09-27T18:03:21Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/230588Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestrepositoriounesp@unesp.bropendoar:29462024-09-27T18:03:21Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Two diode lasers versus ultrasonic activation of EDTA: push-out analysis and penetrability by confocal analysis |
title |
Two diode lasers versus ultrasonic activation of EDTA: push-out analysis and penetrability by confocal analysis |
spellingShingle |
Two diode lasers versus ultrasonic activation of EDTA: push-out analysis and penetrability by confocal analysis Pradelli, Jéssica Arielli [UNESP] Edetic acid Lasers Semiconductor Ultrasonic therapy |
title_short |
Two diode lasers versus ultrasonic activation of EDTA: push-out analysis and penetrability by confocal analysis |
title_full |
Two diode lasers versus ultrasonic activation of EDTA: push-out analysis and penetrability by confocal analysis |
title_fullStr |
Two diode lasers versus ultrasonic activation of EDTA: push-out analysis and penetrability by confocal analysis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Two diode lasers versus ultrasonic activation of EDTA: push-out analysis and penetrability by confocal analysis |
title_sort |
Two diode lasers versus ultrasonic activation of EDTA: push-out analysis and penetrability by confocal analysis |
author |
Pradelli, Jéssica Arielli [UNESP] |
author_facet |
Pradelli, Jéssica Arielli [UNESP] Kuga, Milton Carlos [UNESP] Berbert, Fábio Luiz Camargo Vilella [UNESP] |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Kuga, Milton Carlos [UNESP] Berbert, Fábio Luiz Camargo Vilella [UNESP] |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pradelli, Jéssica Arielli [UNESP] Kuga, Milton Carlos [UNESP] Berbert, Fábio Luiz Camargo Vilella [UNESP] |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Edetic acid Lasers Semiconductor Ultrasonic therapy |
topic |
Edetic acid Lasers Semiconductor Ultrasonic therapy |
description |
EDTA solution removes smear layers; this function is more effective when the solution is agitated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the protocol application of two diode lasers, compared with conventional energization or ultrasonic energization of 17% EDTA, evaluating the EDTA and AH Plus penetration capacity with laser confocal microscopy and push-out strength. In this study, human extracted teeth were used. The crowns were removed, and the root canal was prepared with a ProTaper system until the F5 file is reached, and irrigated with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. The roots were randomly distributed in 5 groups (n=10): group control—flood with EDTA; conventional—flood with EDTA and agitation with K#45; ultrasonic—ultrasonic EDTA energization, TheraLase—EDTA energized with diode laser TheraLase surgery (808 nm, 2.8 W, pulsed mode, 20 Hz); and Gemini—EDTA energized with diode laser Gemini (810–980 nm, 2 W, pulsed mode, 50 Hz). The roots were obturated, using the single-cone technique and AH Plus. The EDTA solution was added with Malachite Green and AH Plus with Rhodamine B for evaluation with a laser confocal microscope. Specimens were sectioned in slices, one slice per third root, used in a laser confocal microscope and push-out strength. The data were submitted to normality test, analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dun test, with a 5% level of significance (P < 0.05). The penetrability of EDTA and AH Plus was statistically different between the Ultrasonic, TheraLase, and Gemini groups when compared with other groups. However, when comparing ultrasonic with TheraLase and Gemini, there was no significant difference. In a push-out strength test, there was no significant difference, and the cohesive failures were predominant. In conclusion, the energization of 17% EDTA with any of the diode lasers improved only the penetrability of EDTA and AH Plus. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-03-01 2022-04-29T08:40:52Z 2022-04-29T08:40:52Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41547-021-00119-w Lasers in Dental Science, v. 5, n. 1, p. 61-68, 2021. 2367-2587 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/230588 10.1007/s41547-021-00119-w 2-s2.0-85126525637 |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41547-021-00119-w http://hdl.handle.net/11449/230588 |
identifier_str_mv |
Lasers in Dental Science, v. 5, n. 1, p. 61-68, 2021. 2367-2587 10.1007/s41547-021-00119-w 2-s2.0-85126525637 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Lasers in Dental Science |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
61-68 |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Scopus reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
repositoriounesp@unesp.br |
_version_ |
1813546381039632384 |