Aim and objective To compare the effectiveness of three irrigation systems, namely, Endovac system, Max I probe, and Navitip FX, in reduction of Enterococcus faecalis population from the root canal using agar diffusion method. Materials and methods Sixty extracted intact human permanent maxillary anterior teeth were selected for this study. In group I, root canals were irrigated using brush covered 30-gauge NaviTipFX. Ultradent in group II root canals was irrigated using brush covered 30-gauge Max-I-Probe Dentsply. In group III, root canals were irrigated using Endoactivator, Dentsply. In group IV, root canal was irrigated by using the Endovac system Sybronendo. The steps followed in the study include preparation of specimen, contamination of the samples followed by conduction of testing procedures with implementation of appropriate irrigation protocols, and sampling procedures. Results Data were subjected to statistical analysis to interpret the significant differences among various irrigation systems. One-way analysis of variance, Post hoc Tukey tests were used for statistical analysis in the present study. Among the experimental groups, group IV showed statistically significant difference in reduction of E. faecalis. There were no statistical differences between them in reduction of E. faecalis in group I and group II compared and represented in Tables 1 and 2. Conclusion All four irrigation delivery systems have been found to be effective in the reduction of E. faecalis. Endovac showed comparable efficacy in reduction of colony-forming units to that of other delivery systems used in the study. The result has to be validated with in vivo studies and clinical trials of larger sample size. Clinical significance Selection of appropriate irrigation system capable of disinfection of canal complexities in apical third with less adverse effects is essential for good clinical success of endodontic treatment. How to cite this article Murugesan S, Rajakumaran A, Kumar BP, et al. Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Novel Root Canal Irrigation Techniques on Reduction of Enterococcus faecalis Count: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(12):1379–1383.

Introduction: Profound local anesthesia in permanent mandibular molars in irreversible pulpitis cases is difficult to attain with inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) alone. In many cases, supplemental anesthesia is required during root canal therapy. The objectives of the present study are to compare the effectiveness of 2% Lidocaine and 4% Articaine when used for inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) and supplemental buccal infiltration (BI) in irreversible pulpitis cases. Materials and Methods: Twenty five patients were randomly alloted to control and test groups. Test group included thirteen patients, anesthetized with 4% Articaine (with 1:100,000 epinephrine) and twelve patients were anesthetized with 2% Lidocaine (with 1:80,000 epinephrine) in control group. The pain experienced by patients during treatment was analyzed by using Heft-Parker visual analogue scale (HP-VAS). In case of pain after IANB, a supplemental buccal infiltration was given with the same anesthetic that was used for IANB. Absence of pain or presence of mild pain was considered as anesthetic success and presence of moderate or severe pain was considered as anesthetic failure. The data was recorded and evaluated using Chi-square test and proportion test. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: After inferior alveolar nerve block, anesthetic success was 54% in Articaine (test) group and 17% in Lidocaine (control) group.Following buccal infiltration, it was 83% in Articaine group and 70% in Lidocaine group. There was no significant difference between two groups after IANB and buccal infiltration. Overall success of Articaine was 92% and Lidocaine was 75%. Conclusion:There was no significant difference in the proportions of the overall success rate between the two groups. Articaine 4% can be considered as a useful alternative for 2% Lidocaine in teeth with irreversible pulpitis cases during root canal therapy.

No abstract

No abstract