Skip to main content
AAE25 Main banner
Endodontic Practice Partners - Exclusively Endodontics. Our specialty is YOU
Endo Mastery Quickfire Breakouts in Booth #1001
Be a Root Canal Rock Star! The stage is set - EdgeEndo at Booth 1201. Let's Rock!
Specialized Dental Partners - Visit AAE Booth #315 - Imagine More with the Power of Partnership
Back

Assessment of New Technology Such as Devices and Materials

OR09 - Efficacy of Supplemental Irrigation Methods Against Bacterial Biofilm-Infected Root Canals Prepared with Minimally Invasive and Conventional Techniques

Wednesday, April 2, 2025
11:00 AM – 11:15 AM EST
Location: Hynes Convention Center, Floor 3, Room 310
Disclosure(s):
Fabricio B. Teixeira, D.D.S., M.S., Ph.D.: No financial relationships to disclose
This study evaluated the effectiveness of the GentleWave System (GWS), Laser-Activated Irrigation (LAI), Ultrasonic-Activated Irrigation (UAI), and Sonic Irrigation (SI) in removing a complex biofilm from infected root canals prepared using both minimally invasive techniques (MIT) and conventional instrumentation techniques (CIT).

Methods: The three-species biofilm was developed in 110 extracted human mandibular premolars with a single canal. For treatment, the root canals were instrumented with endodontic rotary files and randomly divided into five experimental groups according to the supplementary irrigation approach used: GWS, LAI, UAI, SI and No Treatment (NT). Effectiveness was assessed using confocal laser scanning microscopy, and scanning electron microscopy methods. One-way ANOVA, post-hoc Tukey’s HSD test, two-sample t-test, and a mixed model ANOVA were used for statistical analysis (p < 0.05).

Results: GWS presented significantly higher dead cell proportion than UAI and SI (p < 0.05), but no differences with LAI in the CIT group. However, no significant differences were observed among the different supplementary irrigation approaches in the MIT group (p>0.05). Also, LAI and GWS showed better biofilm removal efficacy in coronal and middle thirds, of the CIT group, but LAI was better at the apical third of CIT groups and all three thirds of MIT group.

Conclusion: No supplementary irrigation approach was able to completely remove the three-species biofilm. However, GWS and LAI were more effective at reducing bacterial viability than the other approaches, particularly in the CIT group. Further clinical studies with larger sample sizes to strengthen the validity of these findings and their potential impact on endodontic practice are recommended.