Aim: Aim of this study was to compare the removal of smear layer and organic debris within the tooth canal among conventional needle irrigation, EndoVac and Endoactivator. Methodology: Eighty single-rooted extracted human teeth were prepared with rotary NiTi instrumentation and randomly separated into 4 groups. Twenty teeth were used as positive control (Group 1), irrigated with only saline. Teeth assigned to Group 2 (n = 20) received irrigation with a conventional syringe and a 30-gauge needle (NaviTip, Ultradent, South Jordan, UT); samples in Group 3 (n = 20) were rinsed with an irrigation device based on apical negative pressure (EndoVac, Discus Dental, Culver City, CA) and teeth in Group 4 (n = 20) were treated with a sonic irrigation system (EndoActivator, Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK, USA). The amount of residual smear layer and debris was evaluated under a scanning electron microscope, and a semi- quantitative score was assigned to each root at the coronal, middle and apical thirds; the chi- square test was used to compare the results of the S.E.M. analysis. Results: EndoActivator performed the best cleansing for both smear layer and organic debris in all root canal thirds, followed by EndoVac and conventional irrigation ( p > 0.001). EndoVac and conventional irrigation showed better cleaning in the coronal area, whereas EndoActivator performed an homogeneous cleansing at all levels. Conclusions: The EndoVac system and the EndoActivator system demonstrated significantly more efficacy in cleansing root canal walls than conventional needle irrigation.

Efficacy of three different irrigation techniques in the removal of smear layer and organic debris from root canal wall: a scanning electron microscope study

ANGERAME, DANIELE;
2014

Abstract

Aim: Aim of this study was to compare the removal of smear layer and organic debris within the tooth canal among conventional needle irrigation, EndoVac and Endoactivator. Methodology: Eighty single-rooted extracted human teeth were prepared with rotary NiTi instrumentation and randomly separated into 4 groups. Twenty teeth were used as positive control (Group 1), irrigated with only saline. Teeth assigned to Group 2 (n = 20) received irrigation with a conventional syringe and a 30-gauge needle (NaviTip, Ultradent, South Jordan, UT); samples in Group 3 (n = 20) were rinsed with an irrigation device based on apical negative pressure (EndoVac, Discus Dental, Culver City, CA) and teeth in Group 4 (n = 20) were treated with a sonic irrigation system (EndoActivator, Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK, USA). The amount of residual smear layer and debris was evaluated under a scanning electron microscope, and a semi- quantitative score was assigned to each root at the coronal, middle and apical thirds; the chi- square test was used to compare the results of the S.E.M. analysis. Results: EndoActivator performed the best cleansing for both smear layer and organic debris in all root canal thirds, followed by EndoVac and conventional irrigation ( p > 0.001). EndoVac and conventional irrigation showed better cleaning in the coronal area, whereas EndoActivator performed an homogeneous cleansing at all levels. Conclusions: The EndoVac system and the EndoActivator system demonstrated significantly more efficacy in cleansing root canal walls than conventional needle irrigation.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11368/2830488
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 16
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact