Efficacy of irrigation with rotary instrumentation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

27 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a handpiece-mounted irrigation device and compare it to irrigation with a syringe and needle in the apical 5 mm of the root canal system. Twenty matched pairs of extracted teeth were used. The only variable within each matched pair was the method of irrigation. A syringe and needle were used in group A and the handpiece-mounted system in group B. Sections 1, 3, and 5 mm from the working length were examined microscopically, and images of the slides were digitized. The percentage of canal space occupied by pulpal and dentinal debris was calculated to be 6% ± 12.7% in group A, versus 3.8% ± 7% in group B (p = 0.264). The percentages at each level were as follows: 1 mm from the working length, 14.1% ± 19% for group A and 5% ± 7.5% for group B; 3 mm from working length, 1.8% ± 5.4% for group A and 3.9% ± 6.9% for group B; and 5mmfrom working length, 3.1% ± 7.7% for group A and 2.6% ± 7.3% for group B. In group A, there was significantly more debris in the 1-mm section than in the 3- or 5-mm sections. In group B, the differences between levels were not significant. There was no significant difference in the amount of debris remaining in the apical 5 mm of canals when comparing the handpiece- mounted irrigation device to irrigation with a syringe and needle. The average times for instrumentation in group A (needle irrigation) and group B (Quantec-E irrigation system) were 8.7 ± 2.7 min and 6.5 ± 1.9 min, respectively. Group B was associated with statistically significant shorter instrumentation time (p <0.0005). An average of 12.5 ± 4.9 ml of irrigant was used in group A and 17.3 ± 4.8 ml in group B. The difference was statistically significant (p <0.0005).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)837-839
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Endodontics
Volume28
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2002

Fingerprint

Needles
Syringes
Equipment and Supplies
Dental Pulp Cavity
Tooth

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Efficacy of irrigation with rotary instrumentation. / Walters, Matthew J.; Baumgartner, John (Craig); Marshall, J (Gordon).

In: Journal of Endodontics, Vol. 28, No. 12, 12.2002, p. 837-839.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5d5b4f618e4b4bcc9cf34e60bf8ee14e,
title = "Efficacy of irrigation with rotary instrumentation",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a handpiece-mounted irrigation device and compare it to irrigation with a syringe and needle in the apical 5 mm of the root canal system. Twenty matched pairs of extracted teeth were used. The only variable within each matched pair was the method of irrigation. A syringe and needle were used in group A and the handpiece-mounted system in group B. Sections 1, 3, and 5 mm from the working length were examined microscopically, and images of the slides were digitized. The percentage of canal space occupied by pulpal and dentinal debris was calculated to be 6{\%} ± 12.7{\%} in group A, versus 3.8{\%} ± 7{\%} in group B (p = 0.264). The percentages at each level were as follows: 1 mm from the working length, 14.1{\%} ± 19{\%} for group A and 5{\%} ± 7.5{\%} for group B; 3 mm from working length, 1.8{\%} ± 5.4{\%} for group A and 3.9{\%} ± 6.9{\%} for group B; and 5mmfrom working length, 3.1{\%} ± 7.7{\%} for group A and 2.6{\%} ± 7.3{\%} for group B. In group A, there was significantly more debris in the 1-mm section than in the 3- or 5-mm sections. In group B, the differences between levels were not significant. There was no significant difference in the amount of debris remaining in the apical 5 mm of canals when comparing the handpiece- mounted irrigation device to irrigation with a syringe and needle. The average times for instrumentation in group A (needle irrigation) and group B (Quantec-E irrigation system) were 8.7 ± 2.7 min and 6.5 ± 1.9 min, respectively. Group B was associated with statistically significant shorter instrumentation time (p <0.0005). An average of 12.5 ± 4.9 ml of irrigant was used in group A and 17.3 ± 4.8 ml in group B. The difference was statistically significant (p <0.0005).",
author = "Walters, {Matthew J.} and Baumgartner, {John (Craig)} and Marshall, {J (Gordon)}",
year = "2002",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1097/00004770-200212000-00011",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "837--839",
journal = "Journal of Endodontics",
issn = "0099-2399",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficacy of irrigation with rotary instrumentation

AU - Walters, Matthew J.

AU - Baumgartner, John (Craig)

AU - Marshall, J (Gordon)

PY - 2002/12

Y1 - 2002/12

N2 - The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a handpiece-mounted irrigation device and compare it to irrigation with a syringe and needle in the apical 5 mm of the root canal system. Twenty matched pairs of extracted teeth were used. The only variable within each matched pair was the method of irrigation. A syringe and needle were used in group A and the handpiece-mounted system in group B. Sections 1, 3, and 5 mm from the working length were examined microscopically, and images of the slides were digitized. The percentage of canal space occupied by pulpal and dentinal debris was calculated to be 6% ± 12.7% in group A, versus 3.8% ± 7% in group B (p = 0.264). The percentages at each level were as follows: 1 mm from the working length, 14.1% ± 19% for group A and 5% ± 7.5% for group B; 3 mm from working length, 1.8% ± 5.4% for group A and 3.9% ± 6.9% for group B; and 5mmfrom working length, 3.1% ± 7.7% for group A and 2.6% ± 7.3% for group B. In group A, there was significantly more debris in the 1-mm section than in the 3- or 5-mm sections. In group B, the differences between levels were not significant. There was no significant difference in the amount of debris remaining in the apical 5 mm of canals when comparing the handpiece- mounted irrigation device to irrigation with a syringe and needle. The average times for instrumentation in group A (needle irrigation) and group B (Quantec-E irrigation system) were 8.7 ± 2.7 min and 6.5 ± 1.9 min, respectively. Group B was associated with statistically significant shorter instrumentation time (p <0.0005). An average of 12.5 ± 4.9 ml of irrigant was used in group A and 17.3 ± 4.8 ml in group B. The difference was statistically significant (p <0.0005).

AB - The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a handpiece-mounted irrigation device and compare it to irrigation with a syringe and needle in the apical 5 mm of the root canal system. Twenty matched pairs of extracted teeth were used. The only variable within each matched pair was the method of irrigation. A syringe and needle were used in group A and the handpiece-mounted system in group B. Sections 1, 3, and 5 mm from the working length were examined microscopically, and images of the slides were digitized. The percentage of canal space occupied by pulpal and dentinal debris was calculated to be 6% ± 12.7% in group A, versus 3.8% ± 7% in group B (p = 0.264). The percentages at each level were as follows: 1 mm from the working length, 14.1% ± 19% for group A and 5% ± 7.5% for group B; 3 mm from working length, 1.8% ± 5.4% for group A and 3.9% ± 6.9% for group B; and 5mmfrom working length, 3.1% ± 7.7% for group A and 2.6% ± 7.3% for group B. In group A, there was significantly more debris in the 1-mm section than in the 3- or 5-mm sections. In group B, the differences between levels were not significant. There was no significant difference in the amount of debris remaining in the apical 5 mm of canals when comparing the handpiece- mounted irrigation device to irrigation with a syringe and needle. The average times for instrumentation in group A (needle irrigation) and group B (Quantec-E irrigation system) were 8.7 ± 2.7 min and 6.5 ± 1.9 min, respectively. Group B was associated with statistically significant shorter instrumentation time (p <0.0005). An average of 12.5 ± 4.9 ml of irrigant was used in group A and 17.3 ± 4.8 ml in group B. The difference was statistically significant (p <0.0005).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036885872&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036885872&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00004770-200212000-00011

DO - 10.1097/00004770-200212000-00011

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 837

EP - 839

JO - Journal of Endodontics

JF - Journal of Endodontics

SN - 0099-2399

IS - 12

ER -