Periapical Pressures Developed by Nonbinding Irrigation Needles at Various Irrigation Delivery Rates

Khan, Sara; Niu, Li Na; Eid, Ashraf A.; Looney, Stephen W.; Didato, Anthony; Roberts, Susan Jo; Pashley, David H.; Tay, Franklin R.

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2013.01.001

Cited by 56 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been demonstrated that a potential side effect of instrumentation is the accumulation of debris, which negatively impact the sealing ability of root canal fillings [1,5] . Although conventional irrigation (needle/syringe) has been widely used, several techniques and devices have been proposed to optimize the chemical and mechanical properties and improve the penetration of irrigating solutions; these include the use of syringes associated with modified needles, sonic and ultrasonic devices, and negative pressure irrigation systems [22][23][24] . In this study, three different irrigation systems were compared for their efficiency in removing dentin debris.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

show abstract

“…Reciproc instruments were used in a slow in-and-out pecking motion associated to careful canal disinfection and file cleaning after each three movements to prevent dentin chips accumulation. Furthermore, a specific irrigation protocol was performed, reducing even more the possibility of debris accumulation and extrusion using a Max-i-Probe needle, which avoids the positive pressure directly to the apex (25).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative Pain after Foraminal Instrumentation with a Reciprocating System and Different Irrigating Solutions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare postoperative pain after foraminal instrumentation using 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) or 2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel irrigation protocol in nonvital single-rooted teeth after reciprocating instrumentation. Sixty-two volunteers presenting a single root canal diagnosed with asymptomatic necrosis and apical periodontitis were randomized into 2 experimental groups regarding the irrigation protocol (ie, 5.25% NaOCl and 2% CHX gel groups). Endodontic treatment was performed in a single session under reciprocating instrumentation with foraminal instrumentation. Volunteers were instructed to record pain intensity. Scores from 1 to 4 were attributed to each kind of pain after 24, 48, and 72 h. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Student´s t tests were used to determine significant differences at p<0.05. On average, the percentage of patients that had no or mild pain after 24, 48 or 72 h was 77.4%, 88.7% and 95.1%, respectively. No statistically significant age difference was found between the groups (p>0.05, Student´s t test). Postoperative pain showed no statistically significant difference at any observation period when using 5.25% NaOCl or 2% CHX gel (p>0.05). Moreover, no significant difference was observed in the mean number of analgesic tablets used between the groups (p>0.05). In conclusion, the use of 5.25% NaOCl or 2% CHX gel resulted in the same postoperative pain. Therefore, it can be inferred that irrigant choice has no relation with short-term follow up regarding postoperative pain. P o s t o p e r a t i v e P a i n a f t e r Foraminal Instrumentation with a R e c i p r o c a t i n g S y s t e m a n d Different Irrigating Solutions

show abstract

“…One of these developed an artificial canal using a polycarbonate rod (91). Because the only way to prevent an accidental injection of the irrigant into the apical tissues has been the nonbinding position of the needle (31), the results of this in-vitro study provide us with pivotal information.…”

Section: The Determining Factor: Intracanal Pressurementioning

confidence: 99%

Positive Pressure Irrigation

Gregorio

Heilborn

Cohenca

2014

Disinfection of Root Canal Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Periapical Pressures Developed by Nonbinding Irrigation Needles at Various Irrigation Delivery Rates

Cited by 56 publications

References 32 publications

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

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

Postoperative Pain after Foraminal Instrumentation with a Reciprocating System and Different Irrigating Solutions

Positive Pressure Irrigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About