Cleaning Of Root Canal System Research Articles

Multi-rooted canine confirmed by CBCT – A rare case report

Patient Concerns: Patient reported with dull aching pain, sensitive to both hot and cold stimuli. On examination, deep proximal caries seen in relation to lower right first premolar which was tender on percussion. Diagnosis: Symptomatic Apical Periodontitis Treatment: Root canal treatment was planned. Outcomes: Before initiating the endodontic procedure it is important to assess the root canal morphology and its variations. Inability to do so may lead to insufficient cleaning of root canal system which ultimately leads to endodontic treatment failure. Hence, early detection of such an occurrence is critical to prevent iatrogenic error during endodontic treatment.

Influence of ultrasonic activation in association with different final irrigants on intracanal smear layer removal

Aim: To evaluate the influence of ultrasonic activation (US) with different irrigant regimens in smear layer removal. Methods: One hundred bovine incisors were instrumented and divided into ten groups (n=10) according to final irrigation protocols: distilled water (DW); DW+US; 17% EDTA; QMix; 10% citric acid; 37% phosphoric acid; 17% EDTA+US; QMix+US; 10% citric acid+US; 37% phosphoric acid+US. The samples were then submitted to scanning electron microscopy where a score system was used to evaluate the images and effectiveness of proposed treatments. The data were statistically analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests for intergroup comparisons as well as the Wilcoxon and Friedman tests for intragroup comparisons at 5% significance level. Results: In the cervical third, groups 17% EDTA, QMix, 10% citric acid, 17% EDTA+US, QMix+US and 10% citric acid+US were more effective in smear layer removal (p<0.05); in the middle third, groups 17% EDTA+US and QMix+US were more effective in smear layer removal (p<0.05); in the apical third, groups 17% EDTA,17% EDTA+US and QMix+US were more effective in smear layer removal (p<0.05). Conclusions: US can aid 17% EDTA and QMix in smear layer removal at the middle third and QMix at the apical third, contributing to the cleaning of root canal system.

Cleaning of Root Canal System by Different Irrigation Methods.

The aim of this study was to compare the cleaning of main and lateral canals using the irrigation methods: negative pressure irrigation (EndoVac system), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) and manual irrigation (MI). Resin teeth were used. After root canal preparation, four lateral canals were made at 2 and 7 mm from the apex. Root canals were filled with contrast solution and radiographed pre- and post-irrigation using digital radiographic system [radiovisiography (RVG)]. The irrigation protocols were: MI1-manual irrigation [22 G needle at 5 mm short of working length-WL]; MI2-manual irrigation (30G needle at 2 mm short of WL); PUI; EV1-EndoVac (microcannula at 1 mm short of WL); EV2-Endovac (microcannula at 3 mm short of WL). The obtained images, initial (filled with contrast solution) and final (after irrigation) were analyzed by using image tool 3.0 software. Statistical analysis was performed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey tests (5% significance level). EV1 and EV2, followed by PUI showed better cleaning capacity than manual irrigation (MI1 and MI2) (p < 0.05). Negative pressure irrigation and PUI promoted better cleaning of main and simulated lateral canals. Conventional manual irrigation technique may promote less root canal cleaning in the apical third. For this reason, the search for other irrigation protocols is important, and EndoVac and PUI are alternatives to contribute to irrigation effectiveness.

Emerging trends in Endodontic Irrigants: Who will write the last line?

Considering the primary goal of endodontic treatment, Cleaning and shaping appears to be one of the most crucial step in endodontic therapy. It is only via adequate shaping and cleaning of root canal system, predictable root canal disinfection can be achieved. In view of complexity of root canal system, it is beyond doubt that instruments only cannot clean canals effectively. Hence, an irrigant is must to achieve a clean bacteria free root canal system. A plethora of chemical/ herbal products have been introduced in the dental market in the last two decades but none of the agents developed till date can completely eliminate bacteria and its by-products from the root canal system without any cytotoxicity concerns. This paper compares some of the important properties of the contemporary endodontic irrigants and their current status in the field of endodontic irrigation.