Two diode lasers versus ultrasonic activation of EDTA: push-out analysis and penetrability by confocal analysis

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Pradelli, Jéssica Arielli [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Kuga, Milton Carlos [UNESP], Berbert, Fábio Luiz Camargo Vilella [UNESP]
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