The Journal of the American Dental Association
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 137, No 9, 1261-1266.
© 2006 American Dental Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Radatti, D. A.
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Radatti, D. A.
Right arrow Articles by Marshall, J. G.
Related Collections
Right arrow Dental Equipment/Instruments

RESEARCH

A comparison of the efficacy of Er,Cr:YSGG laser and rotary instrumention in root canal débridement



Daniel A. Radatti, DDS, J. Craig Baumgartner, DDS, PhD and J. Gordon Marshall, DMD

Background. The authors evaluated the efficacy of an erbium,chromium: yttrium,scandium,gallium,garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser-powered hydrokinetic system (HKS) versus that of rotary instrumentation for root canal débridement.

Methods. The authors studied four uninstrumented controls and two test groups of 18 matched pairs of teeth. Teeth from each pair underwent different instrumentation but received identical irrigation solutions. The instrumentation protocol involved either rotary instrumentation or the Er,Cr:YSGG laser. The irrigation groups received 0.5 milliliter of distilled water or 5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) between instruments. The authors measured the amount of debris remaining at 2 and 4 mm from the apex as a percentage of total lumen area.

Results. Lased canals had significantly more debris than did canals that received rotary instrumentation (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P < .001). With distilled water irrigation, the debris remaining in lased canals at both the 2-and 4-mm levels was not statistically different from that remaining in uninstrumented controls. Rotary instrumentation yielded significantly less remaining debris than did laser instrumentation (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P < .001). With 5.25 percent NaOCl irrigation, there was no difference in remaining debris between the two groups (Wilcoxon signed rank test , P < .001). The lased group received significantly more irrigant than did the rotary group (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P < .001).

Conclusions. This study indicates that the débridement efficacy of the HKS with distilled water irrigation is unacceptable; with 5.25 percent NaOCl irrigation, it is similar to that of rotary instrumentation.

Clinical Implications. If the HKS is to be used for débridement, then NaOCl irrigation must be used for predictable tissue removal.

Key Words: Er,Cr:YSGG; laser; hydrokinetic system; endodontic treatment; root canal; débridement







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright©1995-2006 American Dental Association (ADA).
Reproduction or republication strictly prohibited without prior written permission of ADA.