A comparative study of the debridement efficacy and apical extrusion of dynamic and passive root canal irrigation systems

BMC Oral Health

Sukumaran Anil¹  Tala D Al Khudhairi²  Ahmed Alkahtani² 

[1] Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia;Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

关键词: Tip vented needle;    Side vented needle;    Irrigation;    Extrusion;    EndoVac;   

Others  :  1121462
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6831-14-12

 received in 2013-11-19, accepted in 2014-02-05,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Root canal irrigation carries a risk of extrusion of irrigant into the periapical tissues which can be associated with pain, swelling, and tissue damage. Studies have shown less extrusion with sonic or apical negative pressure devices compared with syringe and side-port needle or passive ultrasonic irrigation with continuous irrigant flow. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EndoVac irrigation system, regarding 1) debris removal and 2) the control of apically extruded irrigating solution.

Methods

Fifty extracted human single-rooted teeth were used in this study. The teeth were then randomly divided into three experimental groups according to the type of irrigation used and one control group. In group 1, irrigation was performed using the EndoVac irrigation system. In group 2, irrigation was performed using a 30-gauge, tip-vented irrigation needle. In group 3, irrigation was performed using a 30-gauge, side-vented irrigation needle. The control group received instrumentation with no irrigation to serve as a control for cleaning efficiency. Root canal instrumentation was performed using the Profile NiTi rotary system with a crown-down technique. All of the experimental teeth were irrigated with the same amount of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite. The amount of extruded irrigating solution was then measured by subtracting the post-instrumentation weight from the pre-instrumentation weight using an electronic balance. The cleanliness of debris removal was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy.

Results

EndoVac irrigation had the least amount of extrusion followed by the side-vented and tip-vented method. The difference between the groups was statistically significant (P <0.01). As for the cleaning results, the debris collection in the EndoVac and tip-vented groups was the least in the apical third. In the control and the side-vented groups, the debris was the greatest in the apical third, but this difference was not significant among the three experimental groups.

Conclusions

The EndoVac irrigation system extruded significantly less irrigant solution than either needle irrigation system. Debris collection was the least in the apical third for the EndoVac irrigation system. No significant difference was found in the cleaning efficiency among the three irrigation systems.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Alkahtani et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Shin SJ, Kim HK, Jung IY, Lee CY, Lee SJ, Kim E: Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of a new apical negative pressure irrigating system with conventional irrigation needles in the root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010, 109(3):479-484.
• [2]Ribeiro EM, Silva-Sousa YT, Souza-Gabriel AE, Sousa-Neto MD, Lorencetti KT, Silva SR: Debris and smear removal in flattened root canals after use of different irrigant agitation protocols. Microsc Res Tech 2012, 75(6):781-790.
• [3]Desai P, Himel V: Comparative safety of various intracanal irrigation systems. J Endod 2009, 35(4):545-549.
• [4]Haapasalo M, Endal U, Zandi H, Coil JM: Eradication of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation solutions. Endod Top 2005, 10(1):77-102.
• [5]Townsend C, Maki J: An in vitro comparison of new irrigation and agitation techniques to ultrasonic agitation in removing bacteria from a simulated root canal. J Endod 2009, 35(7):1040-1043.
• [6]Brito PR, Souza LC, de Oliveira JCM, Alves FR, De-Deus G, Lopes HP, Siqueira JF Jr: Comparison of the effectiveness of three irrigation techniques in reducing intracanal Enterococcus faecalis populations: an in vitro study. J Endod 2009, 35(10):1422-1427.
• [7]Howard RK, Kirkpatrick TC, Rutledge RE, Yaccino JM: Comparison of debris removal with three different irrigation techniques. J Endod 2011, 37(9):1301-1305.
• [8]Sedgley CM, Nagel AC, Hall D, Applegate B: Influence of irrigant needle depth in removing bioluminescent bacteria inoculated into instrumented root canals using real-time imaging in vitro. Int Endod J 2005, 38(2):97-104.
• [9]Huang TY, Gulabivala K, Ng YL: A bio-molecular film ex-vivo model to evaluate the influence of canal dimensions and irrigation variables on the efficacy of irrigation. Int Endod J 2008, 41(1):60-71.
• [10]Boutsioukis C, Gogos C, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, Kastrinakis E, Van der Sluis LW: The effect of apical preparation size on irrigant flow in root canals evaluated using an unsteady Computational Fluid Dynamics model. Int Endod J 2010, 43(10):874-881.
• [11]Schneider SW: A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971, 32(2):271-275.
• [12]Abarajithan M, Dham S, Velmurugan N, Valerian-Albuquerque D, Ballal S, Senthilkumar H: Comparison of Endovac irrigation system with conventional irrigation for removal of intracanal smear layer: an in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011, 112(3):407-411.
• [13]Siu C, Baumgartner JC: Comparison of the debridement efficacy of the EndoVac irrigation system and conventional needle root canal irrigation in vivo. J Endod 2010, 36(11):1782-1785.
• [14]Nielsen BA, Craig Baumgartner J: Comparison of the EndoVac system to needle irrigation of root canals. J Endod 2007, 33(5):611-615.
• [15]Gernhardt CR, Eppendorf K, Kozlowski A, Brandt M: Toxicity of concentrated sodium hypochlorite used as an endodontic irrigant. Int Endod J 2004, 37(4):272-280.
• [16]Pashley EL, Birdsong NL, Bowman K, Pashley DH: Cytotoxic effects of NaOCl on vital tissue. J Endod 1985, 11(12):525-528.
• [17]Mitchell RP, Yang SE, Baumgartner JC: Comparison of apical extrusion of NaOCl using the EndoVac or needle irrigation of root canals. J Endod 2010, 36(2):338-341.
• [18]Al-Hadlaq SM, Al-Turaiki SA, Al-Sulami U, Saad AY: Efficacy of a new brush-covered irrigation needle in removing root canal debris: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2006, 32(12):1181-1184.
• [19]Fukumoto Y, Kikuchi I, Yoshioka T, Kobayashi C, Suda H: An ex vivo evaluation of a new root canal irrigation technique with intracanal aspiration. Int Endod J 2006, 39(2):93-99.
• [20]Brunson M, Heilborn C, Johnson DJ, Cohenca N: Effect of apical preparation size and preparation taper on irrigant volume delivered by using negative pressure irrigation system. J Endod 2010, 36(4):721-724.
• [21]Schoeffel GJ: The EndoVac method of endodontic irrigation: safety first. Dent Today 2007, 26(10):92-94. 96
• [22]Schoeffel GJ: The EndoVac method of endodontic irrigation, part 2--efficacy. Dent Today 2008, 27(1):86-87. 82, 84
• [23]Parente JM, Loushine RJ, Susin L, Gu L, Looney SW, Weller RN, Pashley DH, Tay FR: Root canal debridement using manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for final irrigation in a closed system and an open system. Int Endod J 2010, 43(11):1001-1012.
• [24]Malentacca A, Uccioli U, Zangari D, Lajolo C, Fabiani C: Efficacy and safety of various active irrigation devices when used with either positive or negative pressure: an in vitro study. J Endod 2012, 38(12):1622-1626.
• [25]Trepagnier CM, Madden RM, Lazzari EP: Quantitative study of sodium hypochlorite as an in vitro endodontic irrigant. J Endod 1977, 3(5):194-196.
• [26]Chow TW: Mechanical effectiveness of root canal irrigation. J Endod 1983, 9(11):475-479.
• [27]Abou-Rass M, Piccinino MV: The effectiveness of four clinical irrigation methods on the removal of root canal debris. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982, 54(3):323-328.
• [28]Abramoff MD, Viergever MA: Computation and visualization of three-dimensional soft tissue motion in the orbit. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2002, 21(4):296-304.
• [29]Mitchell RP, Baumgartner JC, Sedgley CM: Apical extrusion of sodium hypochlorite using different root canal irrigation systems. J Endod 2011, 37(12):1677-1681.
• [30]Heilborn C, Reynolds K, Johnson JD, Cohenca N: Cleaning efficacy of an apical negative-pressure irrigation system at different exposure times. Quintessence Int 2010, 41(9):759-767.
• [31]Drobotij E, Grower MF, Peters DD, Lorton L, Bernier WE: Comparison of the flushing effectiveness of four different types of needles after root canal preparation. J Endod 1980, 6(12):870-875.
• [32]Goldman M, Goldman LB, Cavaleri R, Bogis J, Lin PS: The efficacy of several endodontic irrigating solutions: a scanning electron microscopic study: Part 2. J Endod 1982, 8(11):487-492.
• [33]Goldman LB, Goldman M, Kronman JH, Lin PS: Scanning electron microscope study of a new irrigation method in endodontic treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1979, 48(1):79-83.
• [34]Goldman M, Kronman JH, Goldman LB, Clausen H, Grady J: New method of irrigation during endodontic treatment. J Endod 1976, 2(9):257-260.
• [35]Susin L, Liu Y, Yoon JC, Parente JM, Loushine RJ, Ricucci D, Bryan T, Weller RN, Pashley DH, Tay FR: Canal and isthmus debridement efficacies of two irrigant agitation techniques in a closed system. Int Endod J 2010, 43(12):1077-1090.
• [36]Salzgeber RM, Brilliant JD: An in vivo evaluation of the penetration of an irrigating solution in root canals. J Endod 1977, 3(10):394-398.