Cleaning efficacy of different root canal preparation systems and irrigation regimens

Ghoneim, Walaa M; Farag, Ali M; Labib, Ahmed H; Darrag, A.M.

doi:10.1016/j.tdj.2014.02.001

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Roots were splitted longitudinally in a buccolingual direction to expose their interior by cutting two grooves on the buccal and lingual aspects of each root using a slow speed diamond disc. The grooves were not deep enough to enter the canals, and then a plastic instrument was used to cleave the root into two longitudinal halves [13] . The root half with better exposure of the apex was chosen and coded for examination by SEM * and the other one was discarded.…”

Section: Evaluation Of Canal Cleanliness Using Scanning Electron Microscope (Sem)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Different Final Irrigation Activation Methods on Root Canal Cleanliness

Elsobky¹,

Darrag

Shaheen

2021

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: to evaluate canal cleanliness after using manual dynamic activation, passive ultrasonic irrigation and photoactivated disinfection in comparison with conventional needle irrigation, using scanning electron microscopy Methods: Sixty single rooted human premolars with nearly straight single canal were collected, the crowns of all teeth were removed near the level of cementoenamel junction to obtain approximately 15 ±1 mm uniform root lengths. After instrumentaion with ProTaper Next files up to X4 (40/06), roots were randomly divided into 4 equal groups (n=15) according to the method of final irrigation activation. Group I: Conventional needle and syringe irrigation. Group II: Manual dynamic activation. Group III: passive ultrasonic irrigation. Group IV: photoactivated disinfection. Canal cleanliness was evaluated with SEM using different magnification (X350-X1000).Results: Group III had the best cleanliness of the root canal while Group I had the worst cleanliness, there were statistical significant differences between Group I versus Groups II and III and between Group III and Group IV (P ≤ 0.05). Regardless the irrigation activation method, the coronal level showed significantly less amount of smear layer and remaining debris than the apical level.Conclusions: None of the tested final irrigation activation methods resulted in completely clean canal wall.

show abstract

Section: Evaluation Of Canal Cleanliness Using Scanning Electron Microscope (Sem)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Different Final Irrigation Activation Methods on Root Canal Cleanliness

Elsobky¹,

Darrag

Shaheen

2021

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The silicon stopper was adjusted, the file was removed and measured, and the correct working length was established by subtracting 1mm from the above measurement [9] . To facilitate handling of the samples during the subsequent steps, the samples were embedded, except for the coronal 3 millimeters, in surgical tubes filled with silicon rubber base impression material of putty consistency and mounted on a bench vice to establish a standardized position during the following steps.…”

Section: Cleaning Efficiency Of Xp-endo Finisher File In Comparison Withmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The longitudinal section of each root with ≤180 o of the canal circumference was selected for the study. The sections with >180 o of canal circumference would possibly interfere with the total canal visualization during photography [7,9,[14][15][16] . Teeth showing that the groove had penetrated the canal were discarded and replaced [17] .…”

Section: Cleaning Efficiency Of Xp-endo Finisher File In Comparison Wmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cleaning Efficiency of XP-endo Finisher File in Comparison with Sonic and Ultrasonic Irrigation Systems (An In Vitro Study)

Azzawi¹,

Mehdi²

2017

IOSR JDMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cleaning and shaping of root canals is a crucial step in endodontic treatments. Irrigation allows removal of residual tissues in the canal that cannot be cleaned by instrumentation alone. This study evaluates and compares the efficiency of XP-endo Finisher (XPF), EndoActivator (EA) and Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI) I. IntroductionThe goal of endodontic therapy is the removal of all vital or necrotic tissues, microorganisms, and microbial by-products from the root canal system. The root canal system is highly complex and variable and has limited our ability to clean and disinfect it predictably. Shaping of root canals is performed almost entirely by using hand and rotary instrumentation techniques . Peters et al., using micro computed tomography scans before and after mechanical instrumentation found that, regardless of the instrumentation technique, 35% or more of the root canal surfaces (including canal fins, isthmuses, and cul-de-sacs) remained uninstrumented [2] . Thus, instrumentation alone does not fully prepare the root canal system for obturation, and disinfection is the key to the augmentation of instrumentation process and optimization of the obturation process [3] . Disinfection is comprised of the removal of the tissue remnants and the associated bacteria in the root canal system through flushing with irrigating solution. The key is to remove as much tissue remnant as possible and the more thorough the process of irrigation, the lower the remaining level of bacteria [4] . Optimal irrigation is based on the use of a combination of two or more irrigating solutions, in a specific sequence, to obtain the goals of effective and safe irrigation predictably. Traditionally, delivery of the irrigant solutions into the root canal system have been done using plastic syringes and metal needles of different sizes and tip designs. However, research and clinical experience have shown, that this classic approach typically results in irrigation that is ineffective, especially in areas such as fins, anastomoses, and the most apical region of the root canal system. Therefore, many of the irrigation solutions have been modified chemically and many mechanical devices have been developed for the improvement of the effectiveness and penetration of irrigation [5] . In spite of the recent advances in irrigation systems, it is still not possible to remove all debris from the root canal systems. Inadequate canal debridement can lead to a decrease in endodontic success [6] . For this reason, different irrigation systems were used in this study and the cleaning efficiency of each system was evaluated and compared to find which system is more preferable for the cleaning of root canals. II. Materials and MethodsSixty freshly extracted human maxillary molar teeth with straight palatal root canals collected from different specialized dental centers were used in this study.Immediately after extraction; bone, calculus, stains and soft tissues on the tooth surface were removed manually by the use of a cumine [7] , disin...

show abstract

“…Soon the nickel–titanium (NiTi) files became popular. [ 5 ] Typically, stainless steel had 2% taper and NiTi files now have 12% taper. But biomechanical preparation with manual instruments was time-consuming and often causes fatigue to the operator and patient.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation of efficiency of different file systems in terms of remaining dentin thickness using cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cleaning efficacy of different root canal preparation systems and irrigation regimens

Cited by 3 publications

References 32 publications

Effect of Different Final Irrigation Activation Methods on Root Canal Cleanliness

Effect of Different Final Irrigation Activation Methods on Root Canal Cleanliness

Cleaning Efficiency of XP-endo Finisher File in Comparison with Sonic and Ultrasonic Irrigation Systems (An In Vitro Study)

Comparative evaluation of efficiency of different file systems in terms of remaining dentin thickness using cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About