• Users Online: 2897
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 248-253

Auto irrigate - The continuous irrigant delivery and intracanal aspiration system


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dayananda Sagar College of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Date of Submission30-Mar-2022
Date of Decision18-Apr-2022
Date of Acceptance31-May-2022
Date of Web Publication28-Dec-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ridyumna Garain
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dayananda Sagar College of Dental Sciences, KS Layout 1st Stage, Bengaluru - 560 078, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/endo.endo_86_22

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Aims: To compare the delivery of irrigant to the apical third of the root canals using an ingeniously designed continuous irrigation and intracanal aspiration system to standard irrigation techniques.
Methods: Sixty-six freshly extracted single-rooted mandibular second premolars of similar dimensions with a single straight canal, confirmed radiographically, were selected and divided into three groups (n = 22) based on irrigation techniques employed: (i) manual dynamic activation, (ii) passive ultrasonic activation, and (iii) the system designed by the authors. Standard oval-shaped access cavities were prepared and the working length was determined radiographically. Instrumentation with ProTaper F2 rotary files was followed by irrigation with 2.5% NaOCl and saline using a 2.5 ml syringe and needle for Groups 1 and 2, and the irrigant delivery system for Group 3. A prefinal rinse with EDTA and a final rinse with saline was also carried out. Apical delivery of irrigant was evaluated by flooding the root canals with 1% toluidine blue dye for 30 seconds. The specimens were decoronated and split vertically and labiolingually and visualized under a stereomicroscope (×5 magnification) and photographed. The images were analyzed using ImageJ software to measure the unstained apical region. One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test was used to statistically analyze the results (P < 0.05).
Results: The ingeniously devised irrigation delivery and intracanal aspiration system showed a significantly higher apical delivery of irrigant as compared to the other methods studied (P < 0.001).
Conclusions: The proposed simple root canal irrigating device can be made with materials readily available. Comparing the same to standard techniques showed better irrigant delivery to the apical region. With further studies planned to evaluate smear layer removal and canal disinfection, we hope that this can serve as an efficient, cost-effective novel device that can be easily incorporated into clinical practice.

Keywords: Continuous irrigation, endodontics, irrigation, root canal treatment


How to cite this article:
Garain R, Pai VS, Krishnakumar G R, Bharathi M, Vedavathi B, Karim J. Auto irrigate - The continuous irrigant delivery and intracanal aspiration system. Endodontology 2022;34:248-53

How to cite this URL:
Garain R, Pai VS, Krishnakumar G R, Bharathi M, Vedavathi B, Karim J. Auto irrigate - The continuous irrigant delivery and intracanal aspiration system. Endodontology [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Jan 28];34:248-53. Available from: https://www.endodontologyonweb.org/text.asp?2022/34/4/248/365817




  Introduction Top


Safe and effective root canal irrigation is considered to be of an utmost importance to successful endodontic treatment. An ideal irrigant should provide mechanical, chemical, and microbiological functions.[1] Without effective irrigation in place, the accumulation of generated debris affects the functional effectiveness of the instruments.[1] Research also showed that several irrigating solutions reported antimicrobial activity against bacteria and yeasts.[2] A bigger challenge in the selection of a particular irrigation system depends on the areas untouched by instrumentation such as fins, isthmuses, large lateral canals, and the apical delta.

The mechanical and chemical advantages of irrigation cannot take place without contact with the targeted microorganisms and tissue remnants.[3],[4] This depends on the concentration of the active component (s) of the irrigant, the areas of contact, and the duration of interaction with the targeted material.

Access to the irrigant can be enhanced by mechanical activation techniques. The fluid motion helps the chemically active particles to be transported quickly and efficiently facilitating its flushing action. In inaccessible areas of the root canal system, irrigant action may still take place by diffusion although slowly and less effectively.

In the present scenario, sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) is considered to be the gold standard.[5] However, in order to be effective, NaOCl should be used in large quantity,[6] stay in contact with the tissues,[7] remain mechanically agitated,[8] and be continuously replenished.[9] Besides, NaOCl should reach even the apical third of the root canal system where exchange and delivery does not take place readily, resulting in incomplete elimination of bacteria from the apical third.[10],[11] Unless the needle of a positive-pressure delivery system is placed close to the apex, the portion of the canal from the apex to the end of the needle may not be reached by the irrigant.[12] When the needle is placed to a depth that allows the irrigant to reach the apex, it may be extruded beyond the apex.[13] Various manual and machine-assisted irrigation and activation techniques have been developed to address these challenges, some of which are manual dynamic agitation (MDA), ultrasonic activation, and negative apical pressure systems. However, these systems are at times tedious (MDA being tiring and taking 3-4 min)[14] to use or require additional investment (negative apical pressure systems) on part of the clinicians and thus may hinder adoption of such techniques.

The objective of this study was to develop an economical continuous irrigant delivery and intracanal aspiration system (auto-irrigate [AI]), with readily available materials at little to no added cost to clinicians, and to compare its effectiveness in delivering irrigant to the apical third of the root canals with prevailing irrigation techniques.


  Materials and Methods Top


Considering an effective size of 0.40, a sample size of 66 was derived using G*Power version 3.1.9.2. A previous study by Galler et al. was taken into consideration for calculating the sample size.[15] Sixty-six freshly extracted single-rooted mandibular second premolar teeth of similar dimensions with a single straight canal were selected and divided into three groups (n = 22) based on the irrigation technique employed. The three groups were as follows: (1) Group 1: MDA group, (2) Group 2: passive ultrasonic activation group, and (3) Group 3: AI. Access cavities were prepared for all the samples. This was followed by working length estimation by inserting a #15 K-file to the radiographic apex. Instrumentation was completed using ProTaper F2 rotary files at working length, with a new file being used for every specimen.

The various irrigation techniques employed in the experiment were as follows:

Group 1: Manual dynamic agitation

After final instrumentation, a master cone snugly fitting 1 mm short of working length was selected and verified radiographically. The instrumented canals were then filled with 1 ml of EDTA delivered with a 30-gauge needle. Manual agitation of the master cone was performed with an up and down motion and a 2 mm amplitude at a frequency of approximately 100 strokes during 1 min. One milliliter of EDTA was then delivered with the irrigating needle to flush out debris. The canals were flushed with saline to eliminate any residual EDTA. This was followed by a flush with 1 ml of 2.5% NaOCl and repetition of the same agitation protocol using 50 in and out strokes for 30 seconds. This was followed by a final rinse of 2.5 ml of saline.

Group 2: Passive ultrasonic activation

Postinstrumentation, ultrasonic activation was carried out for 2 cycles of 30 s with an Irrisafe ultrasonic file (Acteon India Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat, India). 2 ml of 2.5% NaOCl was intermittently injected into the canal in between cycles. This was followed by a final cycle with 17% EDTA. This was followed by a final rinse of 2.5 ml of saline.

Group 3: Auto irrigate

System design

[Figure 1] depicts the design of the system in use. The irrigant delivery system consists of (i) a 9-volt submersible pump, (ii) a power supply, (iii) a rate limiter (potentiometer), and (iv) a flexible tubing that connects the pump to the irrigant delivery tip. The irrigant delivery tip was developed by attaching the barrel of a 2 ml syringe to the flexible tube. Further, a small 21-gauge needle was fixed to this assembly which could then be secured into position, to deliver irrigant into the access cavity of teeth, on the bow of a suitable rubber dam clamp with the help of a composite button [Figure 2]. The intracanal aspirator was prepared by attaching the barrel of a 2 ml syringe to the end of a low volume suction tip. To this assembly, the needles of different gauges could be attached for use in intracanal aspiration, by connecting the intracanal aspirator to the low volume suction line of the dental chair.
Figure 1: System Design

Click here to view
Figure 2: Irrigant Delivery Tip Attached to Rubber Dam Clamp

Click here to view


Irrigation protocol

The designed system was used to ensure continuous delivery of irrigant to the access cavities of the teeth and to permit aspiration of irrigant and debris from inside the canal. Continuous irrigation with 2.5% NaOCl was carried out during instrumentation. The irrigation between instruments was accomplished using 2.5% NaOCl with ultrasonic activation for 25 seconds. This was followed by intracanal aspiration, with a 27-gauge end vented nonbeveled needle that was inserted to a passive fit for 5 seconds. This process was repeated after final instrumentation. Thereafter, the same procedure was carried out with a saline rinse and the intracanal aspiration for 30 seconds. The 17% EDTA solution was used as a prefinal rinse with ultrasonic activation for 25 seconds and also as intracanal aspiration for 5 seconds. Subsequently, this was followed by a saline rinse and intracanal aspiration for 30 seconds. The aspiration after completion of the instrumentation was executed with a needle matching with the final file size (31 gauge) that was 1 mm short of working length.

In this study, apical delivery of irrigant for each group was evaluated by flooding the root canals with 1% toluidine blue dye for 30 seconds, at a time. The specimens were then sectioned vertically in a labiolingual direction with the use of a diamond disc. These sections were subsequently visualized under a stereo microscope at 5x magnification and then photographed. These digital images were scrutinized using ImageJ software to measure the unstained apical region, in the area of operation [Figure 3]a, [Figure 3]b, [Figure 3]c. One-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test was applied for statistical analysis of the results (P < 0.05).
Figure 3: (a) Analysis of the stained region of the root in Group 1. (b) Analysis of the stained region of the root in Group 2. (c) Analysis of the stained region of the root in Group 3. The black and white regions in each image show the stained and unstained areas respectively

Click here to view



  Results Top


[Table 1] shows the comparison of the mean unstained apical region using one-way ANOVA. [Figure 3]a, [Figure 3]b, [Figure 3]c is a representative image of the stained regions of groups 1, 2, and 3 analyzed by ImageJ software. F-value for the one-way ANOVA for comparing the unstained apical region among MDA, US, and AI (F = 244.068) was found to be significant and P < 0.001. There was a significant difference between different treatments, and pair-wise comparison using the Tukey's post hoc test showed P < 0.001 for every pair. Apical delivery of irrigant was found to be significantly higher in case of AI as compared to US followed by MDA.
Table 1: Result of one-way ANOVA

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


A dental surgeon is always on the lookout for better activation techniques and devices for root canal cleaning, disinfection, and elimination of microbial biofilm. This is achieved by a combination of instrumentation and adequate irrigation. In this context, several different instruments and instrumentation techniques have been studied.[16] Nickel-titanium rotary instruments such as the ProTaper system have shown reduced apical transportation, deviation from canal anatomy along with better centralization in the root canals, and adequate debridement.[17],[18] An increase in the apical root canal preparation and taper as a result of different instrumentation techniques has also shown improved irrigation efficacy.[19],[20],[21] Several studies on instrumentation coupled with various irrigation/activation techniques using ProTaper rotary instruments have shown satisfactory cleaning of the root canal walls when the ProTaper F2 rotary file was used as the final finishing file.[22],[23],[24] Some of the contemporarily available root canal irrigation techniques include manual dynamic activation (MDA), intermittent passive ultrasonic irrigation, continuous ultrasonic irrigation (CUI), passive ultrasonic irrigation, sonic irrigation, hydrodynamic activation, use of plastic finishing file, self-adjusting file, photoactivated disinfection, and laser activation, among others (Er:YAG, PIPS).

The above-noted techniques and devices used by the dental surgeons are often found to have been extensively tested and compared. Comparison of these results is at times inconclusive due to model differences, use of plastic and extracted teeth, diverse evaluation methodologies, different preparation tapers, various apical sizes, volume variations, and time horizons.

Irrespective of the activation technique considered, it is significant to note that the agitation plays a critical role in distributing and exchanging the solution within the canal space and for enhancing antiseptic and solvent effectiveness. In this context, there is a general consensus on the benefit of using irrigant activation at the end of the canal preparation.[25]

MDA is widely accepted as a simple yet cost-effective way to help the irrigant to reach the canal intricacies, the apical portion of the canal, and to dislodge the vapor lock effect in the surrounding area. It creates higher intracanal pressure changes during the in-and-out movement of the GP cone, and further the frequency of the strokes creates turbulences and thereafter it enhances diffusion by shear stresses. Ultimately, MDA facilitates the mixing of fresh solution with the stagnant solution in the apical millimeters.[25] Parente et al. in 2010 conducted a series of studies to compare the efficacy of ANP (EndoVac) and MDA. In one experiment, the canal debridement efficiency was tested for both the techniques, in a closed system as well as in an open environment.[26] The findings exhibited that a sealed apical foramen adversely affected debridement while using MDA, but the same was not the case for ANP. Jiang et al.,[27] while comparing MDA, the safety irrigator, CUI, and the apical negative pressure (ANP), found CUI to be the most useful and effective technique. In such experiments, the researcher's main concern during irrigant activation is the risk of apical extrusion. The contemporary research and findings[28],[29],[30] support that all tested devices (including MDA) appear to extrude some irrigant. While ANP was reported to be the safest, ANP should be seen more as a delivery device rather than an activation system.

In the case of smear layer removal utilizing US, results are varied, with a greater number of studies indicating that US helps remove smear layer. Such variations in results could be due to the use of different types, quantity, and concentrations of irrigants. The amount of irrigant, the delivery method, and the delivery time of irrigants have also been evaluated. Intermittent flushing is considered to be a more popular method in comparison to external continuous flushing for US. However, this technique is more time-consuming due to the stop-and-go process applied. There is a need to replenish the irrigant periodically, in view of the dentin debris, tissue, bacteria, and biofilm continuously saturating the irrigating solution and increasing the viscosity of the solution. It may be noted that such a process may perpetuate to the point where no ultrasonic activity may occur in the solution. Weller et al.[31] and Moorer and Wesselink[8] also reported this effect. The available research supports the findings that refreshing NaOCl during PUI/UAI increases the reaction of NaOCl[32],[33] and improves the cleaning of the canals. It is pertinent to note that the time taken for the technique and for the irrigant replenishment will become a consideration, since the US improves the cleanliness of root canals and canal isthmuses. Gutarts et al.[34] reported one of the early studies using an ultrasonically activated irrigating needle that simultaneously and successfully activated and replenished the irrigant deep within the canals. This system was subsequently designated as CUI. The outcome resulted in cleaner canals and canal isthmuses within the 3 mm of the canal apex and in the vital mandibular molar mesial roots. This occurred with irrigation duration of 1 min per canal with 5.25% NaOCl. In further study in this direction, Carver et al.[35] evaluated the in vivo removal of planktonic bacteria using the same treatment technique and the CUI in necrotic mandibular molars. Their findings reported a significant increase in negative cultures and reduction of CFUs in comparison to the canal preparation solely with needle irrigation (NaOCl). Another study by Burleson et al.[36] examined in vivo biofilm removal applying the same device/technique. It is pertinent to highlight that their findings reported significantly cleaner canals and isthmuses with the use of CUI as compared to needle irrigation.

The apical negative-pressure systems for irrigation have the ability to suction, thus performing the job of drawing and delivering the irrigant passively to the apex.[37] The EndoVac system is one the such systems that was developed to safely and predictably deliver irrigant to the apical terminus. The EndoVac allows a better penetration of the irrigating solution into the inherent anatomy and morphology of the root canal system. This delivers the chosen irrigant passively to the apex[12],[38] and positively deal with the problem of irrigation penetration past the apex into the periapical tissue, that could otherwise result in treatment complications.[13],[39],[40] In vitro and in vivo studies have positively confirmed superior expulsion of debris from the apical walls. This has resulted in a statistically cleaner outcome using ANP irrigation in closed root canal systems with sealed apices. Siu and Baumgartner[41] reported less residual debris present around 1 mm working space, while using ANP compared to the use of traditional needle irrigation. Park et al.[42] also found that both traditional syringe irrigation and ANP technique resulted in clean root canals. However, ANP resulted in less residual debris lingering at 1.5 and 3.5 mm from working area.[41],[42],[43] The root canal debridement using MDA was also compared with the EndoVac system for final agitation in a closed system as well as in an open system. The results reported the presence of a sealed apical foramen adversely affecting debridement efficacy during the use of MDA. However, similar adverse impact on the results was not reported in the use of the EndoVac system. Thus, it can be confidently stated that the ANP irrigation is an effective method to overcome the fluid dynamic challenges inherent in a closed root canal system.[26],[44] Further, both the ANP irrigation and the manual dynamic irrigation have been found to be more efficient and effective in removing the smear layer in the apical one third,[45] compared to passive ultrasonic irrigation.

Keeping these findings in mind, the current delivery system was designed (i) to ensure continuous delivery of irrigant, (ii) to permit irrigant replenishment, and (iii) to create a negative apical pressure gradient for providing flow of irrigant from the coronal to the apical region. It assumes significance to guarantee the flow of irrigant from the coronal to the apical region, while aspirating the older irrigant and debris and at the same time preventing apical extrusion of the same. The preliminary study resorted to use of dye penetration as a surrogate method for testing the irrigant action in the apical region. This method was chosen for the preliminary study for testing the hypothesis. These test results reported to be in concurrence with the findings of prevailing studies. The findings of this study showed higher irrigant action with the use of AI system in comparison with both MDA and US. Despite certain methodological limitations in this study, the findings appear to be convincing and prospective. Further studies on smear layer removal, biofilm removal/root canal disinfection, and apical extrusion would aid in validating the efficacy of this system.


  Conclusions Top


From the findings of this study, it can be concluded:

  1. This ingeniously developed continuous irrigant delivery and intracanal aspiration system showed greatest irrigant delivery to the apical third of the root canal
  2. Standard passive ultrasonic activation performed better than manual dynamic activation, but poorly when compared to the continuous irrigant delivery and intracanal aspiration system
  3. MDA showed the least delivery of irrigant to the apical third of the root canal.


Further research findings can evaluate and validate the efficacy of this system. This innovative and yet simple root canal irrigating device would serve as an efficient, cost-effective, and novel device that can be effortlessly incorporated into clinical practice.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Jaju S, Jaju PP. Newer root canal irrigants in horizon: A review. Int J Dent 2011;2011:851359.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Fidalgo TK, Barcelos R, Portela MB, Soares RM, Gleiser R, Silva-Filho FC. Inhibitory activity of root canal irrigants against Candida albicans, Enterococcus faecalis and Staphylococcus aureus. Braz Oral Res 2010;24:406-12.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Haapasalo M, Endal U, Zandi H, Coil JM. Eradication of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation solutions. Endod Top 2005;10:77-102.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Seal GJ, Ng YL, Spratt D, Bhatti M, Gulabivala K. An in vitro comparison of the bactericidal efficacy of lethal photosensitization or sodium hyphochlorite irrigation on Streptococcus intermedius biofilms in root canals. Int Endod J 2002;35:268-74.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod 2006;32:389-98.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Thé SD. The solvent action of sodium hypochlorite on fixed and unfixed necrotic tissue. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1979;47:558-61.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Trepagnier CM, Madden RM, Lazzari EP. Quantitative study of sodium hypochlorite as an in vitro endodontic irrigant. J Endod 1977;3:194-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Moorer WR, Wesselink PR. Factors promoting the tissue dissolving capability of sodium hypochlorite. Int Endod J 1982;15:187-96.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Baumgartner JC, Cuenin PR. Efficacy of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite for root canal irrigation. J Endod 1992;18:605-12.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Molven O, Olsen I, Kerekes K. Scanning electron microscopy of bacteria in the apical part of root canals in permanent teeth with periapical lesions. Endod Dent Traumatol 1991;7:226-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Nair PN. Pathogenesis of apical periodontitis and the causes of endodontic failures. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2004;15:348-81.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Spoorthy E, Velmurugan N, Ballal S, Nandini S. Comparison of irrigant penetration up to working length and into simulated lateral canals using various irrigating techniques. Int Endod J 2013;46:815-22.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Mitchell RP, Baumgartner JC, Sedgley CM. Apical extrusion of sodium hypochlorite using different root canal irrigation systems. J Endod 2011;37:1677-81.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Ahuja P, Nandini S, Ballal S, Velmurugan N. Effectiveness of four different final irrigation activation techniques on smear layer removal in curved root canals: A scanning electron microscopy study. J Dent (Tehran) 2014;11:1-9.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Galler KM, Grubmüller V, Schlichting R, Widbiller M, Eidt A, Schuller C, et al. Penetration depth of irrigants into root dentine after sonic, ultrasonic and photoacoustic activation. Int Endod J 2019;52:1210-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Liang Y, Yue L. Evolution and development: Engine-driven endodontic rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Int J Oral Sci 2022;14:12.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Meireles DA, Marques AA, Garcia LF, Garrido ADB, Sponchiado EC. Assessment of apical deviation of root canals after debridement with the Hybrid, ProTaper and PathFile systems. J Interdiscip Dent 2012;2:20.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Duque JA, Vivan RR, Cavenago BC, Amoroso-Silva PA, Bernardes RA, Vasconcelos BC, et al. Influence of NiTi alloy on the root canal shaping capabilities of the ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Gold rotary instrument systems. J Appl Oral Sci 2017;25:27-33.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Boutsioukis C, Gogos C, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, Kastrinakis E, Van der Sluis LW. The effect of root canal taper on the irrigant flow: Evaluation using an unsteady Computational Fluid Dynamics model. Int Endod J 2010;43:909-16.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
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;36:721-4.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Falk KW, Sedgley CM. The influence of preparation size on the mechanical efficacy of root canal irrigation in vitro. J Endod 2005;31:742-5.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
da Frota MF, Filho IB, Berbert FL, Sponchiado EC Jr., Marques AA, Garcia Lda F. Cleaning capacity promoted by motor-driven or manual instrumentation using ProTaper Universal system: Histological analysis. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:79-82.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Varghese AK, Satish S, Gowda B, Uthappa R, Patil AM. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of diode laser, EndoActivator, passive ultrasonic irrigant, and manual irrigation activation systems in debridement of root canal isthmus: An in vitro study. Endodontology 2022;34:27.  Back to cited text no. 23
  [Full text]  
24.
Baratto-Filho F, Leonardi DP, Zielak JC, Vanni JR, Sayão-Maia SMA, Neto MDS. Influence of protaper finishing files and sodium hypochlorite on cleaning and shaping of mandibular central incisors – A histological analysis. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:229-33.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
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.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Parente JM, Loushine RJ, Susin L, Gu L, Looney SW, Weller RN, et al. 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;43:1001-12.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Jiang LM, Lak B, Eijsvogels LM, Wesselink P, van der Sluis LW. Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of different final irrigation techniques. J Endod 2012;38:838-41.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Boutsioukis C, Psimma Z, Kastrinakis E. The effect of flow rate and agitation technique on irrigant extrusion ex vivo. Int Endod J 2014;47:487-96.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Boutsioukis C, Psimma Z, van der Sluis LW. Factors affecting irrigant extrusion during root canal irrigation: A systematic review. Int Endod J 2013;46:599-618.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Desai P, Himel V. Comparative safety of various intracanal irrigation systems. J Endod 2009;35:545-9.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Weller RN, Brady JM, Bernier WE. Efficacy of ultrasonic cleaning. J Endod 1980;6:740-3.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Macedo RG, Verhaagen B, Wesselink PR, Versluis M, van der Sluis LW. Influence of refreshment/activation cycles and temperature rise on the reaction rate of sodium hypochlorite with bovine dentine during ultrasonic activated irrigation. Int Endod J 2014;47:147-54.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
van der Sluis LW, Vogels MP, Verhaagen B, Macedo R, Wesselink PR. Study on the influence of refreshment/activation cycles and irrigants on mechanical cleaning efficiency during ultrasonic activation of the irrigant. J Endod 2010;36:737-40.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Gutarts R, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M. In vivo debridement efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation following hand-rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars. J Endod 2005;31:166-70.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Carver K, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M. In vivo antibacterial efficacy of ultrasound after hand and rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars. J Endod 2007;33:1038-43.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Burleson A, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M. The in vivo evaluation of hand/rotary/ultrasound instrumentation in necrotic, human mandibular molars. J Endod 2007;33:782-7.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J, Choi KK, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod 2009;35:791-804.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
de Gregorio C, Paranjpe A, Garcia A, Navarrete N, Estevez R, Esplugues EO, et al. Efficacy of irrigation systems on penetration of sodium hypochlorite to working length and to simulated uninstrumented areas in oval shaped root canals. Int Endod J 2012;45:475-81.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
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.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Zhu WC, Gyamfi J, Niu LN, Schoeffel GJ, Liu SY, Santarcangelo F, et al. Anatomy of sodium hypochlorite accidents involving facial ecchymosis – A review. J Dent 2013;41:935-48.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
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;36:1782-5.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Park SY, Shin SY, Yang SM, Kye SB. Factors influencing the outcome of root-resection therapy in molars: A 10-year retrospective study. J Periodontol 2009;80:32-40.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Nielsen BA, Craig Baumgartner J. Comparison of the EndoVac system to needle irrigation of root canals. J Endod 2007;33:611-5.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
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.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Saber SE, Hashem AA. Efficacy of different final irrigation activation techniques on smear layer removal. J Endod 2011;37:1272-5.  Back to cited text no. 45
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed289    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded61    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]