The efficiency of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite in preventing inoculation of periapical tissues with contaminated patency files: An ex vivo evaluation

Kini, Shravan; Sv, Shetty; Kh, Shetty; Kudva, Aravind R; Kumar, Pradeep

doi:10.4103/0975-7406.163542

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Root canal disinfection is the essential key to endodontic management. Sodium hypochlorite at 2.5%–5.25% is the irrigant of choice; efficiency is related to the delivery system which must be thin to reach the complex apical regions allowing full disinfection [ 8 , 10 , 24 ]. Considering the complexity of the canal system, full potentiality of the irrigant is required.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) remains the irrigant of choice [ 5 – 7 ] due to its antibacterial nature, dissolving both necrotic and organic matter within the smear layer [ 8 ]. The Scientific Committee Consensus [ 6 , 8 – 10 ] recommends a concentration of 2.5% to 5.25% of sodium hypochlorite, providing adequate balance between disinfection and toxicity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Radiological Evaluation of Penetration of the Irrigant according to Three Endodontic Irrigation Techniques

Dhaimy¹,

Imdary²,

Dhoum³

et al. 2016

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. This experimental study is to compare radiographs based on the penetration depth of the irrigant following three final irrigation techniques. Material and Method. A sample of sixty teeth with single roots were prepared with stainless steel K files followed by mechanized Ni-Ti files iRace® under irrigation with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. Radiopaque solution was utilized to measure the penetration depth of the irrigant. Three irrigation techniques were performed during this study: (i) passive irrigation, (ii) manually activated irrigation, and (iii) passive irrigation with an endodontic needle CANAL CLEAN®. Radiographs were performed to measure the length of irrigant penetration in each technique. Results. In comparison, passive irrigation with a conventional syringe showed infiltration of the irrigant by an average of 0.682 ± 0.105, whereas the manually activated irrigation technique indicated an average of 0.876 ± 0.066 infiltration. Irrigation with an endodontic syringe showed an average infiltration of 0.910 ± 0.043. The results revealed highly significant difference between the three irrigation techniques (α = 5%). Conclusion. Adding manual activation to the irrigant improved the result by 20%. This study indicates that passive irrigation with an endodontic needle has proved to be the most effective irrigation technique of the canal system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiological Evaluation of Penetration of the Irrigant according to Three Endodontic Irrigation Techniques

Dhaimy¹,

Imdary²,

Dhoum³

et al. 2016

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…17,[18][19][20] Sodium hypochlorite is used for the irrigation of canals because sodium hypochlorite is the most effective irrigant used for canal cleaning because of it is antibacterial property removing the dead tissue including the necrotic one and organic part of the smear layer. 21 The Scientific Committee Consensus, [22][23][24] recommends a concentration of 2.5% to 5.25% of sodium hypochlorite, in order to decrease its toxicity without decreasing its antibacterial effect. GuttaFlow bioseal combined both Guttapercha and sealer in one product used as a sealer and obturating material.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the penetration depth of Guttaflow bioseal and Bioceramic sealers using scanning electron microscope (in vitro study).

Saeed

2023

EDJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objective: Three-dimensional obturation of the canal is mandatory in root canal treatment to decrease failure rate, the major cause of root canal reinfection after obturation is insufficient obturation of the canal which later leads to a periapical lesion and reinfection.This study aimed to evaluate the penetration depth of Guttaflow bioseal and Bioceramic sealer. Methods: Twenty extracted single-rooted human teeth (mandibular first premolar) were used in this study, teeth were decornated leaving 10 mm root length. The chemico-mechanical preparation of the samples was done by using a protaper universal system till size F1 and then samples were divided into 2 groups (n = 10), according to the filling material in the first group Guttaflow bioseal used while in the second group Onefil bioceramic sealer used the sealers introduced into canals according to manufactures instructions and then obturated with gutta-percha size F1, single condensation technique used and finally samples were cross- sectioned at 3 and 7 mm, sealers penetration depth was measured by using scanning electron microscope. Result: Independent sample t-test shows that the difference between the penetration depth of guttaflow bioseal and bioceramic sealers are non-significant while the ANOVA test shows that the difference between the three sections of the root is highly significant for both sealer, coronal section shows the best result for Guttaflow bioseal while middle section for Bioceramic shows the best result of penetration. Conclusion: There are no difference in sealer penetration of both sealers Guttaflow bioseal and Onefil bioceramic, while regarding sealer penetration in each sections of root for Guttaflow bioseal in coronal section shows a best penetration, for Onefil bioceramic middle section shows a best penetration.

show abstract

“…There are those who view this with concern due to the possibility of bacterial extrusion [34,35], and its subsequent influence on treatment outcome in the light of studies -although rare -that have reported root canal failure due to bacteria found in the periapical area [36]. Two in-vitro studies explored this possibility and reported that when using a patency file in canals filled with NaOCl, this prevented the inoculation of periapical tissue with bacteria [37,38]. How-ever, in these studies, the files were contaminated with only Streptococcus sanguis which does not reflect the diverse bacterial population found in root canals undergoing endodontic treatment, and which may include more resistant bacterial strains [36].…”

Section: Apical Patency and Biological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of apical patency on root canal treatment outcome: a contemporary overview

Almohareb¹,

Barakat²,

Alshedokhi³

2021

jos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining the apical limit of root canal preparation has proved to be a matter of continuous debate. During root canal instrumentation, soft tissue or debris get impacted in the apical region causing canal blockage. This can be avoided if apical patency is maintained. A major concern over apical patency is extrusion causing periapical tissue irritation and delaying or hindering periapical healing. The aim of this review was to evaluate the literature regarding the influence of apical patency on success of root canal treatment. A search of the literature was conducted via PubMed using the terms "apical patency" OR "patency file". Inclusion criteria were: articles published in English, between the years 2000 and 2020, and were neither case reports nor reviews. A total of 32 articles were selected. Clinical studies directly investigating the influence of apical patency on root canal treatment outcome are limited. In-vitro and in-vivo studies were found evaluating amount of extrusion, canal cleanliness, and shaping associated with apical patency examined this influence indirectly. According to the available literature, there is little evidence to contraindicate the use of apical patency or suggest it has a negative effect on root canal treatment outcome. However, more evidence of high quality is required to confirm this.

show abstract

The efficiency of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite in preventing inoculation of periapical tissues with contaminated patency files: An ex vivo evaluation

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

Radiological Evaluation of Penetration of the Irrigant according to Three Endodontic Irrigation Techniques

Radiological Evaluation of Penetration of the Irrigant according to Three Endodontic Irrigation Techniques

Evaluation of the penetration depth of Guttaflow bioseal and Bioceramic sealers using scanning electron microscope (in vitro study).

Influence of apical patency on root canal treatment outcome: a contemporary overview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About