Skip to content

The Efficacy of Laser in Root Canal Disinfection

The Efficacy of 2780 nm Er,Cr;YSGG and 940 nm Diode Laser in Root Canal Disinfection: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05964686
Enrollment
30
Registered
2023-07-28
Start date
2022-01-01
Completion date
2022-12-30
Last updated
2023-11-29

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Pulp and Periapical Tissue Disease, Pulp; Granuloma, Pulp Necroses

Keywords

LASER, Endodontics, canal disinfection

Brief summary

The aim of this study is to assess in vivo the efficacy of Er,Cr:YSGG/diode laser and Diode/EDTA on bacterial count in root canal treatment in an evidence-based clinical trial. The null hypothesis being tested is that there is no difference in total bacterial count reduction between conventional irrigation and the two types of lasers used. Thirty patients are equally divided into 3 separate groups : * Group A (Conventional): 2.5% NaOCL and 17% EDTA. * Group B(Dual): saline along with Er,Cr:YSGG laser and diode laser combination * Group C(Combined): saline along with 17% EDTA and diode laser combination Microbiological analysis will be done for both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria using Colony forming units. All data will be collected, tabulated, summarized, and statistically analyzed.

Detailed description

The use of lasers in disinfection of the root canal has been recently implemented. Lasers have bactericidal effect, and have deep penetration depth inside the root canal up to 1000 um. Thus, it can be used effectively for disinfection of the root canal system following biomechanical instrumentation reaching areas which were considered before non-reachable. The aim of this study is to assess in vivo the efficacy of Er,Cr:YSGG/diode laser and Diode/EDTA on root canal treatment in an evidence-based clinical trial. The null hypothesis being tested is that there is no difference in total bacterial count reduction between conventional irrigation and the two types of lasers used. Thirty patients are equally divided into 3 separate groups : * Group A (Conventional): 2.5% NaOCL and 17% EDTA. * Group B(Dual): saline along with Er,Cr:YSGG laser and diode laser combination * Group C(Combined): saline along with 17% EDTA and diode laser combination After disinfection, local anesthetic and tooth isolation and access cavity preparation, the first microbial samples (S1) will be collected using 3 sterile paper points and immediately placed inside sterile tubes containing transport medium of thioglycolate, cleaning and shaping with final disinfection protocol will be performed according to the group in which the participant was allocated to. Followed by S2 sample. obturation using warm vertical compaction technique. Microbiological analysis will be done for both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria using Colony forming units. All data will be collected, tabulated, summarized, and statistically analyzed.

Interventions

COMBINATION_PRODUCTConventional group (NaOCl/EDTA)

conventional disinfection using 2.5% sodium hypochlorite and 17% EDTA

COMBINATION_PRODUCTDual laser group (Er,Cr:YSGG/Diode):

Er,Cr:YSGG intracanal laser irradiation to remove smear layer followed by diode laser for disinfection

COMBINATION_PRODUCTCombined group (EDTA/Diode):

17% EDTA was used to remove smear layer followed by diode laser for disinfection

Sponsors

Ain Shams University
CollaboratorOTHER
Future University in Egypt
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 35 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* • Patients who are medically free. * Patient's age between 18-35 years. * One single rooted maxillary anterior tooth with necrotic pulp and asymptomatic apical periodontitis requiring root canal treatment. * Patients complaining of no pain and without fistulous tract. * Periapical lesion with a periapical index score of 3 or 4 (Ørstavik, et al. (1986)108 * Closed apex. * Acceptance to participate in the study.

Exclusion criteria

* Patients suffering from any systemic disease. * Patients who had received antibiotics during the last month. * Patients taking analgesics 12 hours before interventions. * Patients with history of tobacco usage * Teeth with vital pulp, calcified canals, and immature or incompletely formed apices. * Teeth with previous endodontic treatment. * Non restorable teeth where rubber dam could not be applied. * Teeth with periodontal pocket more than 3 mm. * Teeth with greater than grade 1 mobility. * Teeth with swelling/sinus tract. * Technical difficulties in the course of root canal treatment for example: * A tooth with curved roots

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Quantitative microbiological analysisbaseline (S1): sample will be obtained before canal disinfection. post operative (S2): sample will be obtained after canal disinfection in a single visit]aerobic bacterial count will be assessed using colony forming units (CFU) and will be expressed in (CFU/ml). anaerobic bacterial count will be assessed using colony forming units (CFU) and will be expressed in (CFU/ml).

Countries

Egypt

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026