Comparative evaluation of the amount of debris extruded apically using conventional syringe, passive ultrasonic irrigation and EndoIrrigator Plus system: An in vitro study

Abstract

Aim:The aim of this study is to compare the effects of conventional syringe, passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and EndoIrrigator Plus on the amount of apically extruded debris.Materials and Methods:Thirty extracted human mandibular premolars were selected and randomly assigned to three groups (n = 10). The root canals were irrigated with conventional syringe, PUI, and EndoIrrigator Plus. Sodium hypochlorite was used as an irrigant, and debris was collected in a previously described experimental model (Myers and Montgomery 1991). It was then stored in an incubator at 37°C for 10 days to evaporate the irrigant before weighing the dry debris. The mean weight of debris was assessed, one-way analysis of variance was used for comparison of values, and post hoc Tukey's test was used between groups (P = 0.05).Results:The EndoIrrigator Plus group extruded significantly less debris than PUI and conventional syringe groups (P < 0.05). Furthermore, PUI group extruded significantly less debris than conventional syringe irrigation group (P < 0.05).Conclusions:1. All the three irrigation systems were associated with apical extrusion of debris, 2. EndoIrrigator Plus system extruded significantly less debris than the PUI system and the conventional syringe irrigation system, 3. PUI system extruded significantly less debris than the conventional syringe irrigation system.

Comparison of apical debris extrusion using EDDY, passive ultrasonic activation and photon‐initiated photoacoustic streaming irrigation activation devices

“…In addition, in the present study, there was no difference in the amount of apical debris extrusion using the PIPS, PUI and MI methods. Others reported that PUI produced less debris extrusion than MI (17,22,27). In the present study, PUI caused (by weight) less apical debris extrusion than MI, but there was no statistically significant difference between the amount of debris extrusion using MI and PUI.…”

Apical extrusion of debris following the use of single-file rotary/reciprocating systems, combined with syringe or ultrasonically-facilitated canal irrigation

“…also concluded that ultrasonic irrigation extruded lesser debris in comparison with conventional syringe irrigation. [18] Open-ended needles generate positive pressures in excess of central venous pressure, as stated by Khan et al . [19] A study by Boutsioukis et al .…”

Effectiveness of Vapor Lock Effect Removal in Endo Training Blocks: Manual Dynamic Agitation versus Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation

“…In the cases where vapor lock presence was demonstrated, the MDA [20] method was performed with a dedicated F3 gutta-percha cone, using back and forth movements inside the canal for 10 s. In the evaluation of PUI efficacy performed on the endo training block similar to the close-ended systems whose terminal portion was closed using orthodontic wax, a watery solution was delivered inside the endo training blocks using a disposable syringe, with a tip-opened 25 G diameter needle, located 5 mm beyond the entrance of the resin block; this technique is commonly known as PPI [31]. In the cases where vapor lock presence was demonstrated, the PUI method was performed using a Woodpecker ultrasonic tip (28/32 kHz) (Guilin Woodpecker Medical Instrument, Guilin, Guangxi, China) [32], with a 0.8 mm ø mounted on a Satelec handle(Satelec, Bordeaux, France), acting inside the block for 10 s.…”

“…In the evaluation of PUI efficacy performed on the endo training block similar to the close-ended systems whose terminal portion was closed using orthodontic wax, a watery solution was delivered inside the endo training blocks using a disposable syringe, with a tip-opened 25 G diameter needle, located 5 mm beyond the entrance of the resin block; this technique is commonly known as PPI [31]. In the cases where vapor lock presence was demonstrated, the PUI method was performed using a Woodpecker ultrasonic tip (28/32 kHz) (Guilin Woodpecker Medical Instrument, Guilin, Guangxi, China) [32], with a 0.8 mm ø mounted on a Satelec handle(Satelec, Bordeaux, France), acting inside the block for 10 seconds. The photos were recorded with a digital camera (Canon 1100D, Tokyo, Japan) at a fixed position and magnification using stable supports for the digital camera and specimens.…”