Helmy, R., Mokhless, N., El Backly, R. (2016). In Vitro Comparative Efficacy of Two Techniques for Irrigant Delivery in Curved Root Canals. test, 41(3), 314-317. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.58045
Raouf H. Helmy; Nayera A. Mokhless; Rania M. El Backly. "In Vitro Comparative Efficacy of Two Techniques for Irrigant Delivery in Curved Root Canals". test, 41, 3, 2016, 314-317. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.58045
Helmy, R., Mokhless, N., El Backly, R. (2016). 'In Vitro Comparative Efficacy of Two Techniques for Irrigant Delivery in Curved Root Canals', test, 41(3), pp. 314-317. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.58045
Helmy, R., Mokhless, N., El Backly, R. In Vitro Comparative Efficacy of Two Techniques for Irrigant Delivery in Curved Root Canals. test, 2016; 41(3): 314-317. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.58045

In Vitro Comparative Efficacy of Two Techniques for Irrigant Delivery in Curved Root Canals

Alexandria Dental Journal
Article 14, Volume 41, Issue 3, December 2016, Pages 314-317    PDF (505.97 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2016.58045
Authors
Raouf H. Helmy1; Nayera A. Mokhless2; Rania M. El Backly3
1Bachelor of Dentistry, BDS, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
2Assistant Professor of Endodontics, Conservative Dentistry Department, PhD, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
3Lecturer of Endodontics, Conservative Dentistry Department, PhD, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: One of the goals of conventional endodontic treatment is to minimize the amount of irritants that could be present inside the root canal system. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate irrigant delivery using two different techniques in curved canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The mesiobuccal canals of 20 human extracted mandibular first molars were divided into two groups (n=10); Group (I) conventional syringe with side vented needle, Group (II) sonic irrigation (EndoActivator system). Contrast medium (OptirayTM 320, Mallinckrodt Inc. Hazelwood, MO, USA) was injected before, during and after canal preparation. All canals were prepared using Revo-S rotary system till reaching file AS35 using 5.25% NaOCl as an irrigant during instrumentation. Standardized preoperative, operative and postoperative digital radiographs were taken. The distance between full working length and the point of maximum irrigant penetration was measured using image editing software (DBS Win 5.3.1 and Image J). Data were then recorded and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Sonic irrigation showed a statistical significant difference over the conventional needle and syringe group in increasing the depth of penetration of the contrast medium. CONCLUSIONS: the use of EndoActivator in irrigation had a superior effect in increasing the depth of penetration of irrigant when compared to conventional needle and syringe
Keywords
EndoActivator; Irrigant penetration depth; conventional side vented syringe; recent irrigation technique
References
1. DesaiP,HimelV.Comparativesafetyofvariousintracanal irrigation systems. J Endod. 2009;35:545-9.
2. van der Sluis LW, Gambarini G, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. The influence of volume, type of irrigant and flushing method on removing artificially placed dentine debris from the apical root canal during passive ultrasonic irrigation. Int Endod J. 2006;39:472-6.
3. Uroz-Torres D, Gonzalez-Rodriguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM. Effectiveness of the EndoActivator System in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation. J Endod. 2010;36:308-11.
4. Ruddle CJ. Hydrodynamic disinfection: tsunami endodontics. Dent Today. 2007;26:110, 112, 114-7.
5. Akman M, Akbulut MB, Aydinbelge HA, Belli S. Comparison of different irrigation activation regimens and conventional irrigation techniques for the removal of modified triple antibiotic paste from root canals. J Endod. 2015;41:720-4.
6. StamosDE,SadeghiEM,HaaschGC,GersteinH.Aninvitro comparison study to quantitate the debridement ability of hand, sonic, and ultrasonic instrumentation. J Endod. 1987;13:434- 40.
7. SabinsRA,JohnsonJD,HellsteinJW.Acomparisonofthe cleaning efficacy of short-term sonic and ultrasonic passive irrigation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod. 2003;29:674-8.
8. KatoAS,CunhaRS,daSilveiraBuenoCE,PelegrineRA, Fontana CE, de Martin AS. Investigation of the efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation versus irrigation with reciprocating activation: An environmental scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2016;42: 659-63.
9. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971;32:271-5.
10.Sydney GB, Batista A, de Melo LL. The radiographic platform: a new method to evaluate root canal preparation in vitro. J Endod. 1991;17:570-2.
11. Mitchell RP, Yang SE, Baumgartner JC. Comparison of apical extrusion of NaOCl using the EndoVac or needle irrigation of root canals. J Endod. 2010;36:338-41.
12. Guastalli AR, Clarkson RM, Rossi-Fedele G. The Effect of Surfactants on the Stability of Sodium Hypochlorite Preparations. J Endod. 2015;41:1344-8.
13.Gopikrishna V, Ashok P, Kumar AP, Narayanan LL. Influence of temperature and concentration on the dynamic viscosity of sodium hypochlorite in comparison with 17% EDTA and 2% chlorhexidine gluconate: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2014;17:57-60.
14.Seeliger E, Lenhard DC, Persson PB. Contrast media viscosity versus osmolality in kidney injury: lessons from animal studies. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:358136.
15. Bronnec F, Bouillaguet S, Machtou P. Ex vivo assessment of irrigant penetration and renewal during the final irrigation regimen. Int Endod J. 2010;43:663-72.
16.Lee SJ, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. The effectiveness of syringe irrigation and ultrasonics to remove debris from simulated irregularities within prepared root canal walls. Int Endod J. 2004;37:672-8.
17.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;109:479-84.
18. Tay FR, Gu LS, Schoeffel GJ, Wimmer C, Susin L, Zhang K, et al. Effect of vapor lock on root canal debridement by using a side-vented needle for positive-pressure irrigant delivery. J Endod. 2010;36:745-50.
19. Cameron JA. The synergistic relationship between ultrasound and sodium hypochlorite: a scanning electron microscope evaluation. J Endod. 1987;13:541-5.
20.Rodig T, Dollmann S, Konietschke F, Drebenstedt S, Hulsmann M. Effectiveness of different irrigant agitation techniques on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Endod. 2010;36:1983-7.
21.Huffaker SK, Safavi K, Spangberg LS, Kaufman B. Influence of a passive sonic irrigation system on the elimination of bacteria from root canal systems: a clinical study. J Endod. 2010;36:1315-8.
22.Barnett F, Trope M, Khoja M, Tronstad L. Bacteriologic status of the root canal after sonic, ultrasonic and hand instrumentation. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1985;1:228-31.
23. Reynolds MA, Madison S, Walton RE, Krell KV, Rittman BR. An in vitro histological comparison of the step-back, sonic, and ultrasonic instrumentation techniques in small, curved root canals. J Endod. 1987; 13:307-14.

Statistics
Article View: 167
PDF Download: 479