Effectiveness of four different techniques in removing intracanal medicament from the root canals: An in vitrostudy

Abstract

Aim:To evaluate the effectiveness of different techniques in removing calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) from the root canal.Materials and Methods:Twenty-four freshly extracted mandibular premolars were instrumented using ProTaper rotary instruments. The teeth were longitudinally split into two halves, cleaned of debris. The two halves were then reassembled and filled with Ca(OH)2 and were divided into four groups. In Group I, the teeth were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and 5 mL of 17% of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. In Group II, the teeth were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl and a rotary ProTaper F3 instrument was used. In Group III, the teeth were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl and agitated using an ultrasonic unit. In Group IV, the teeth were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl and a CanalBrush was used to remove Ca(OH)2. The roots were disassembled, and photographs were taken. The amount of residual Ca(OH)2 was calculated using an image analysis software as a percentage of the total canal surface area. The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and post-hoc Tukey test.Results:CanalBrush and ultrasonic techniques showed significantly less residual Ca(OH)2 than irrigants and rotary techniques. There was no significant difference between the rotary and irrigant techniques.Conclusion:None of the techniques used were completely able to remove Ca(OH)2 from the root canals. But the CanalBrush and ultrasonic techniques were significantly better than the rotary instrument and irrigant groups.

An in vitro evaluation of various irrigation techniques for the removal of double antibiotic paste from root canal surfaces

“…To our knowledge, no study has compared the effectiveness of CanalBrush on the removal of antibiotic pastes. However, a recent study reported that no significant difference was found between CanalBrush and PUI on the removal of CH from root canal surfaces 7 . On the other hand, Grischke, et al 13 (2014) investigated the efficacy of four different irrigation systems in removing root canal sealer from simulated irregularities on the root canal wall, and reported that PUI is more effective than CanalBrush.…”

Comparison of different agitation methods for the removal of calcium hydroxide from the root canal: Scanning electron microscopy study

“…Concerning 1 st and 2 nd group, conventional and ultrasonic technique, there was not statistically significant difference. That comes in disagreement with some authors[ 21 ] who compared the efficacy of conventional technique and passive ultrasonic irrigation for the removal of calcium hydroxide. They found that ultrasonic agitation of NaOCl was significantly more effective than irrigant-only techniques.…”

Comparison of two different methods in the removal of oil based calcium hydroxide from root canal system: A triple blinded randomized clinical trial

“…Myriad of studies have calculated and reported the remaining amount of Ca(OH) 2 on the canal walls using various methods, such as micro-computed tomography, CBCT, stereo microscopes and scanning electron microscopes ( 23 , 25 , 27 , 38 ), but all of them were on extracted teeth which fails to mimic the conditions that exist in oral environment. This trial compares two techniques for removal of intracanal medicament in clinical setup so that the generated results are practical and applicable for clinical settings.…”

“…Sample size was calculated by sample size calculator (sample size determination in Health studies, WHO). The study by Bhuyan et al ( 25 ) reported that the mean percentage of remaining Ca(OH) 2 after using ProTaper rotary was 35.49±4.73 while after using ultrasonic activation the mean remaining percentage of Ca(OH) 2 was 25.82±6.72. Keeping the above difference at the level of significance (α) at 1% and power of study (1-β) at 99%, we needed at least 21 observations per group.…”