Comparison of the debridement efficacy of the endovac irrigation system and conventional needle root canal irrigation in vivo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the debridement efficacy of EndoVac irrigation versus conventional needle irrigation in vivo. Methods: Seven adult patients with a total of 22 matched pairs of single-canaled vital teeth with fully formed apices were recruited. Canals were instrumented to a master apical file size #40/.04 taper. One tooth from each matched pair was irrigated by using the EndoVac system. The other tooth was irrigated by conventional needle irrigation. Five additional teeth were used as positive controls. A #10 K-file was inserted into the control canals to determine working length (WL), with no other instrumentation or irrigation performed to confirm the presence of debris. The teeth were extracted, fixed, and decalcified. Six histologic slides each 6 μm thick were made from sections at 1 and 3 mm from WL and stained. The slide with the most debris was photographed at each level for each tooth. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the percentage of debris remaining in the canals between the 2 irrigation techniques. Results: The median amount of debris remaining at 1 mm was 0.05% for the EndoVac group and 0.12% for the conventional irrigation group (P .05). Conclusions: EndoVac irrigation resulted in significantly less debris at 1 mm from WL compared with conventional needle irrigation. There was no significant difference at the 3-mm level.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1782-1785
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Endodontics
Volume36
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2010

Fingerprint

Dental Pulp Cavity
Debridement
Needles
Tooth
Nonparametric Statistics

Keywords

  • Conventional needle
  • debridement
  • debris
  • EndoVac
  • irrigation
  • root canal

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

@article{d877e315678f42d6a136e3c6775331c1,
title = "Comparison of the debridement efficacy of the endovac irrigation system and conventional needle root canal irrigation in vivo",
abstract = "Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the debridement efficacy of EndoVac irrigation versus conventional needle irrigation in vivo. Methods: Seven adult patients with a total of 22 matched pairs of single-canaled vital teeth with fully formed apices were recruited. Canals were instrumented to a master apical file size #40/.04 taper. One tooth from each matched pair was irrigated by using the EndoVac system. The other tooth was irrigated by conventional needle irrigation. Five additional teeth were used as positive controls. A #10 K-file was inserted into the control canals to determine working length (WL), with no other instrumentation or irrigation performed to confirm the presence of debris. The teeth were extracted, fixed, and decalcified. Six histologic slides each 6 μm thick were made from sections at 1 and 3 mm from WL and stained. The slide with the most debris was photographed at each level for each tooth. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the percentage of debris remaining in the canals between the 2 irrigation techniques. Results: The median amount of debris remaining at 1 mm was 0.05{\%} for the EndoVac group and 0.12{\%} for the conventional irrigation group (P .05). Conclusions: EndoVac irrigation resulted in significantly less debris at 1 mm from WL compared with conventional needle irrigation. There was no significant difference at the 3-mm level.",
keywords = "Conventional needle, debridement, debris, EndoVac, irrigation, root canal",
author = "Chris Siu and Baumgartner, {John (Craig)}",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.023",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "36",
pages = "1782--1785",
journal = "Journal of Endodontics",
issn = "0099-2399",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the debridement efficacy of the endovac irrigation system and conventional needle root canal irrigation in vivo

AU - Siu, Chris

AU - Baumgartner, John (Craig)

PY - 2010/11

Y1 - 2010/11

N2 - Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the debridement efficacy of EndoVac irrigation versus conventional needle irrigation in vivo. Methods: Seven adult patients with a total of 22 matched pairs of single-canaled vital teeth with fully formed apices were recruited. Canals were instrumented to a master apical file size #40/.04 taper. One tooth from each matched pair was irrigated by using the EndoVac system. The other tooth was irrigated by conventional needle irrigation. Five additional teeth were used as positive controls. A #10 K-file was inserted into the control canals to determine working length (WL), with no other instrumentation or irrigation performed to confirm the presence of debris. The teeth were extracted, fixed, and decalcified. Six histologic slides each 6 μm thick were made from sections at 1 and 3 mm from WL and stained. The slide with the most debris was photographed at each level for each tooth. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the percentage of debris remaining in the canals between the 2 irrigation techniques. Results: The median amount of debris remaining at 1 mm was 0.05% for the EndoVac group and 0.12% for the conventional irrigation group (P .05). Conclusions: EndoVac irrigation resulted in significantly less debris at 1 mm from WL compared with conventional needle irrigation. There was no significant difference at the 3-mm level.

AB - Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the debridement efficacy of EndoVac irrigation versus conventional needle irrigation in vivo. Methods: Seven adult patients with a total of 22 matched pairs of single-canaled vital teeth with fully formed apices were recruited. Canals were instrumented to a master apical file size #40/.04 taper. One tooth from each matched pair was irrigated by using the EndoVac system. The other tooth was irrigated by conventional needle irrigation. Five additional teeth were used as positive controls. A #10 K-file was inserted into the control canals to determine working length (WL), with no other instrumentation or irrigation performed to confirm the presence of debris. The teeth were extracted, fixed, and decalcified. Six histologic slides each 6 μm thick were made from sections at 1 and 3 mm from WL and stained. The slide with the most debris was photographed at each level for each tooth. A Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare the percentage of debris remaining in the canals between the 2 irrigation techniques. Results: The median amount of debris remaining at 1 mm was 0.05% for the EndoVac group and 0.12% for the conventional irrigation group (P .05). Conclusions: EndoVac irrigation resulted in significantly less debris at 1 mm from WL compared with conventional needle irrigation. There was no significant difference at the 3-mm level.

KW - Conventional needle

KW - debridement

KW - debris

KW - EndoVac

KW - irrigation

KW - root canal

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77958011805&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77958011805&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.023

DO - 10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.023

M3 - Article

C2 - 20951287

AN - SCOPUS:77958011805

VL - 36

SP - 1782

EP - 1785

JO - Journal of Endodontics

JF - Journal of Endodontics

SN - 0099-2399

IS - 11

ER -