Conservative Dentistry and Endodontic Journal

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  7 (2022)
Volume  6 (2021)
Volume  5 (2020)
Volume  4 (2019)
Volume  3 (2018)
Volume  2 (2017)
Volume  1 (2016)
Related articles

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Penetration Depth of 5.25% Sodium Hypochlorite Solution Using Different Irrigation Needles and Activation Systems: An In Vitro Radiographic Assessment

Aathira Vijay, Liza George, Josey Mathew, RV Vineet, Aleesha Joy

Keywords : Double side vented irrigation needle, Manual dynamic activation, Omnipaque (Iohexol), Side vented irrigation needles, Sonic activation, TruNatomy irrigation needles, Ultrasonic activation

Citation Information : Vijay A, George L, Mathew J, Vineet R, Joy A. Penetration Depth of 5.25% Sodium Hypochlorite Solution Using Different Irrigation Needles and Activation Systems: An In Vitro Radiographic Assessment. Cons Dent Endod J 2022; 7 (2):35-39.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10048-0113

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 03-08-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim and objectives: To evaluate and compare the depth of penetration of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite solution using different irrigation needles and activation systems using radiographic analysis. Materials and methods: Sixty permanent single-rooted mandibular premolars were selected. The four groups (n = 15) based on the type of irrigation needle used were randomly selected from among the 60 samples, and each group was then subdivided into three subgroups (n = 5) according to the activation method. The crowns were decoronated and root canal preparations were done using hand file systems. Radio labeled 5.25% sodium hypochlorite was used as root canal irrigant. The penetration depth of the irrigant was observed with the aid of a radiograph comparing conventional irrigation needles with side vents, double side vents, and TruNatomy needles and with various activation strategies. The data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA. Results: Except side vent and double side vent needles, all needles appear to significantly differ according to pairwise testing for activations. In comparison to other needles, TruNatomy needles demonstrated greater depth of penetration, whereas conventional needles showed the least depth of penetration of the irrigant. All three systems differ significantly in terms of the activation system. When compared to manual dynamic activation (MDA) and ultrasonic systems, the Endo activator produced the best results.

PDF Share
  1. Dhaimy S, Imdary S, Dhoum S, et al. Radiological evaluation of penetration of the irrigant according to three endodontic irrigation techniques. Int J Dent 2016;2016:1–6. DOI: 10.1155/2016/3142742.
  2. Kandaswamy D, Venkateshbabu N. Root canal irrigants. J Conserv Dent 2010;13(4):256–264. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.73378.
  3. Boutsioukis C, Arias-Moliz MT. Present status and future directions–irrigants and irrigation methods. Int Endod J 2022;55(Suppl 3): 588–612. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13739.
  4. Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J, et al. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod 2009;35(6):791–804. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.03.010.
  5. Kini S, Shetty SV, Shetty KH, et al. The efficiency of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite in preventing inoculation of periapical tissues with contaminated patency files: An ex vivo evaluation. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2015;7(Suppl 2):S563–S566. DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.163542.
  6. Machtou P. Manual Dynamic Activation (MDA) Technique. In: Endodontic Irrigation. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. pp. 149–55.
  7. Shin SJ, Kim HK, Jung IY, et al. Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of a new apical negative pressure irrigating system with conventional irrigation needles in the root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109(3):479–484. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.10.050.
  8. Boutsioukis C, Kastrinakis E, Lambrianidis T, et al. Formation and removal of apical vapor lock during syringe irrigation: A combined experimental and computational fluid dynamics approach. Int Endod 2014;47(2):191–201. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12133.
  9. Ada K, Shetty S, Jayalakshmi KB, et al. Influence of different irrigant activation methods on apical debris extrusion and bacterial elimination from infected root canals. J Conserv Dent 2023;26(1): 31–35. DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_378_22.
  10. Van der Sluis LW, Versluis M, Wu MK, et al. Passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: A review of the literature. International endodontic journal 2007;40(6):415–426. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01243.x.
  11. Chaudhry S, Yadav S, Talwar S, et al. Effect of Endo Activator and Er, Cr: YSGG laser activation of Qmix, as final endodontic irrigant, on sealer penetration: A confocal microscopic study. J Clin Exp Dent 2017;9(2):e218–e222. DOI: 10.4317/jced.53270.
  12. Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L, et al. Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, EndoVac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): Field emission scanning electron microscopic evaluation in an in vitro study. J Endod 2013;39(11):1456–1460. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.07.028.
  13. Pasricha SK, Makkar S, Gupta P. Pressure alteration techniques in endodontics - A review of literature. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(3):ZE01–ZE06. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/9249.5613.
  14. İnce-Yusufoğlu S, Keskin NB, Uslu G, et al. Effect of EDDY and manual dynamic activation techniques on postoperative pain in non-surgical retreatment: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Oral Health 2023;23(1):3. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02702-4.
  15. Plotino G, Pameijer CH, Grande NM, et al. Ultrasonics in endodontics: A review of the literature. J Endod 2007;33(2):81–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.10.008.
  16. Boutsioukis C, Gogos C, Verhaagen B, et al. The effect of apical preparation size on irrigant flow in root canals evaluated using an unsteady Computational Fluid Dynamics model: CFD preparation size study. Int Endod J 2010;43(10):874–881. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01761.x.
  17. Kharouf N, Pedullà E, La Rosa GRM, et al. In vitro evaluation of different irrigation protocols on intracanal smear layer removal in teeth with or without pre-endodontic proximal wall restoration. J Clin Med 2020;9(10):3325. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9103325.
  18. Goel T, Saraf BG, Indushekar KR, et al. Comparative evaluation of working length using conventional radiographic method, radiovisiography, and apex locator in single-rooted permanent teeth. J Oral Health Community Dent 2021;15(2):49–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10062-0103.
  19. Bronzato JD, Bomfim RA, Hayasida GZP, et al. Analysis of microorganisms in periapical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Oral Biol 2021;124:105055. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2021.105055.
  20. Narayanan LL, Vaishnavi C. Endodontic microbiology. J Conserv Dent 2010;13(4):233–239. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.73386.
  21. Ali A, Bhosale A, Pawar S, et al. Current trends in root canal irrigation. Cureus 2022;14(5):e24833. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.24833.
  22. Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Wang Z, et al. Irrigation in endodontics. Br Dent J 2014;216(6):299–303. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.204.
  23. Teja KV, Ramesh S, Battineni G, et al. The effect of various in-vitro and ex-vivo parameters on irrigant flow and apical pressure using manual syringe needle irrigation: Systematic review. Saudi Dent J 2022;34(2):87–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2021.12.001.
  24. Butcher S, Mansour A, Ibrahim M. Influence of apical preparation size on effective conventional irrigation in the apical third: A scanning electron microscopic study. Eur Endod J 2019;4(1):9–14. DOI: 10.14744/eej.2018.06078.
  25. Akhlaghi NM, Dadresanfar B, Darmiani S, et al. Effect of master apical file size and taper on irrigation and cleaning of the apical third of curved canals. J Dent (Tehran) 2014;11(2):188–195. PMID: 24910695.
  26. Brunson M, Heilborn C, Johnson DJ, et al. Effect of apical preparation size and preparation taper on irrigant volume delivered by using negative pressure irrigation system. J Endod 2010;36(4):721–724. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.11.028.
  27. Albrecht LJ, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Evaluation of apical debris removal using various sizes and tapers of ProFile GT files. J Endod 2004;30(6):425–428. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200406000-00012.
  28. Arvaniti IS, Khabbaz MG. Influence of root canal taper on its cleanliness: A scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2011;37(6):871–874. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.02.025.
  29. Khademi A, Yazdizadeh M, Feizianfard M. Determination of the minimum instrumentation size for penetration of irrigants to the apical third of root canal systems. J Endod 2006;32(5):417–420. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.11.008.
  30. Srivastava I, Srivastava S, Grover R, et al. Comparative evaluation of efficacy of different irrigating needles and devices in removal of debris from apical third of root canal: An in-vitro SEM study. Contemp Clin Dent 2021;12(3):222–229. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_468_20.
  31. van der Sluis L, Boutsioukis C, Jiang LM, et al. Root Canal Irrigation. In: Springer Series on Biofilms. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2015. pp. 259–301. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-47415-0_9.
  32. Bulgu S, Yıldızeli A, Çadırcı S, et al. Computational investigation of the tip effects of various root canal needles on irrigation performance. Essent Dent 2021;1(1):30–37. DOI: 10.5152/EssentDent.2021.21007.
  33. Silva PB, Krolow AM, Pilownic KJ, et al. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using different irrigation needles. Braz Dent J 2016;27(2): 192–195. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201600382.
  34. Schiavotelo TCL, Coelho MS, Rasquin LC, et al. Ex-vivo smear layer removal efficacy of two activated irrigation techniques after reciprocating instrumentation in curved canals. Open Dent J 2017;11:512–519. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601711010512.
  35. Mohammadi Z, Shalavi S, Giardino L, et al. Impact of ultrasonic activation on the effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite: A review. Iran Endod J 2015 Fall;10(4):216–220. DOI: 10.7508/iej.2015.04.001.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.