Evaluates smear layer removal effectiveness in root canals using EDTA and Er: YAG laser, indicating an improved cleaning method.
Background: Successful endodontic therapy depends on effective smear layer removal to ensure optimal disinfection and sealing of the root canal system. Chelating agents such as Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) are routinely used; however, their ability to clean the apical third remains limited. Laser-assisted irrigation has been proposed as an adjunct to enhance smear layer removal. Aim: This study aims to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of 17% EDTA, Erbium: Yttrium–Aluminum–Garnet (Er: YAG) laser (side-firing spiral EndoTip), and their combination in removing the smear layer from root canal dentin. Materials and Methods: Forty extracted single-rooted premolars were instrumented using ProTaper Universal rotary files and randomly divided into four groups ( n = 10) based on the final irrigation protocol: (1) Group 1: Distilled water (control), (2) Group 2: 17% EDTA, (3) Group 3: Er: YAG laser irradiation, (4) Group 4: EDTA with Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation. Longitudinally sectioned samples were examined under a scanning electron microscope at the coronal, middle, and apical thirds. Smear layer removal was assessed using Hülsmann’s scoring criteria. Statistical Analysis: Data were analyzed using SPSS version 21.0. Intergroup comparisons were performed using the Chi-square test, with P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: The combination of EDTA and Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation demonstrated the most effective smear layer removal across all root canal levels, followed by laser alone, EDTA, and the control group ( P = 0.001). Conclusion: Er: YAG laser activation combined with 17% EDTA significantly improves smear layer removal and enhances overall root canal cleanliness compared to conventional irrigation methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shwetha et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: