Review of Contemporary Irrigant Agitation Techniques and Devices

Li sha Gu, Jong Ryul Kim, Junqi Ling, Kyung Kyu Choi, David Henry Pashley, Franklin Chi Meng Tay

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

294 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Effective irrigant delivery and agitation are prerequisites for successful endodontic treatment. Methods: This article presents an overview of the irrigant agitation methods currently available and their debridement efficacy. Results: Technological advances during the last decade have brought to fruition new agitation devices that rely on various mechanisms of irrigant transfer, soft tissue debridement, and, depending on treatment philosophy, removal of smear layers. These devices might be divided into the manual and machine-assisted agitation systems. Overall, they appear to have resulted in improved canal cleanliness when compared with conventional syringe needle irrigation. Despite the plethora of in vitro studies, no well-controlled study is available. This raises imperative concerns on the need for studies that could more effectively evaluate specific irrigation methods by using standardized debris or biofilm models. In addition, no evidence-based study is available to date that attempts to correlate the clinical efficacy of these devices with improved treatment outcomes. Thus, the question of whether these devices are really necessary remains unresolved. There also appears to be the need to refocus from a practice management perspective on how these devices are perceived by clinicians in terms of their practicality and ease of use. Conclusions: Understanding these fundamental issues is crucial for clinical scientists to improve the design and user-friendliness of future generations of irrigant agitation systems and for manufacturers' contentions that these systems play a pivotal role in contemporary endodontics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)791-804
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Endodontics
Volume35
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2009

Fingerprint

Equipment and Supplies
Endodontics
Debridement
Smear Layer
Practice Management
Social Responsibility
Syringes
Biofilms
Needles

Keywords

  • Agitation
  • debris
  • irrigation
  • machine-assisted
  • manual
  • smear layer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Review of Contemporary Irrigant Agitation Techniques and Devices. / Gu, Li sha; Kim, Jong Ryul; Ling, Junqi; Choi, Kyung Kyu; Pashley, David Henry; Tay, Franklin Chi Meng.

In: Journal of Endodontics, Vol. 35, No. 6, 01.06.2009, p. 791-804.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Gu, Li sha ; Kim, Jong Ryul ; Ling, Junqi ; Choi, Kyung Kyu ; Pashley, David Henry ; Tay, Franklin Chi Meng. / Review of Contemporary Irrigant Agitation Techniques and Devices. In: Journal of Endodontics. 2009 ; Vol. 35, No. 6. pp. 791-804.
@article{88c12d11695e4122bb67a9d57f1daa89,
title = "Review of Contemporary Irrigant Agitation Techniques and Devices",
abstract = "Introduction: Effective irrigant delivery and agitation are prerequisites for successful endodontic treatment. Methods: This article presents an overview of the irrigant agitation methods currently available and their debridement efficacy. Results: Technological advances during the last decade have brought to fruition new agitation devices that rely on various mechanisms of irrigant transfer, soft tissue debridement, and, depending on treatment philosophy, removal of smear layers. These devices might be divided into the manual and machine-assisted agitation systems. Overall, they appear to have resulted in improved canal cleanliness when compared with conventional syringe needle irrigation. Despite the plethora of in vitro studies, no well-controlled study is available. This raises imperative concerns on the need for studies that could more effectively evaluate specific irrigation methods by using standardized debris or biofilm models. In addition, no evidence-based study is available to date that attempts to correlate the clinical efficacy of these devices with improved treatment outcomes. Thus, the question of whether these devices are really necessary remains unresolved. There also appears to be the need to refocus from a practice management perspective on how these devices are perceived by clinicians in terms of their practicality and ease of use. Conclusions: Understanding these fundamental issues is crucial for clinical scientists to improve the design and user-friendliness of future generations of irrigant agitation systems and for manufacturers' contentions that these systems play a pivotal role in contemporary endodontics.",
keywords = "Agitation, debris, irrigation, machine-assisted, manual, smear layer",
author = "Gu, {Li sha} and Kim, {Jong Ryul} and Junqi Ling and Choi, {Kyung Kyu} and Pashley, {David Henry} and Tay, {Franklin Chi Meng}",
year = "2009",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.joen.2009.03.010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "791--804",
journal = "Journal of Endodontics",
issn = "0099-2399",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Review of Contemporary Irrigant Agitation Techniques and Devices

AU - Gu, Li sha

AU - Kim, Jong Ryul

AU - Ling, Junqi

AU - Choi, Kyung Kyu

AU - Pashley, David Henry

AU - Tay, Franklin Chi Meng

PY - 2009/6/1

Y1 - 2009/6/1

N2 - Introduction: Effective irrigant delivery and agitation are prerequisites for successful endodontic treatment. Methods: This article presents an overview of the irrigant agitation methods currently available and their debridement efficacy. Results: Technological advances during the last decade have brought to fruition new agitation devices that rely on various mechanisms of irrigant transfer, soft tissue debridement, and, depending on treatment philosophy, removal of smear layers. These devices might be divided into the manual and machine-assisted agitation systems. Overall, they appear to have resulted in improved canal cleanliness when compared with conventional syringe needle irrigation. Despite the plethora of in vitro studies, no well-controlled study is available. This raises imperative concerns on the need for studies that could more effectively evaluate specific irrigation methods by using standardized debris or biofilm models. In addition, no evidence-based study is available to date that attempts to correlate the clinical efficacy of these devices with improved treatment outcomes. Thus, the question of whether these devices are really necessary remains unresolved. There also appears to be the need to refocus from a practice management perspective on how these devices are perceived by clinicians in terms of their practicality and ease of use. Conclusions: Understanding these fundamental issues is crucial for clinical scientists to improve the design and user-friendliness of future generations of irrigant agitation systems and for manufacturers' contentions that these systems play a pivotal role in contemporary endodontics.

AB - Introduction: Effective irrigant delivery and agitation are prerequisites for successful endodontic treatment. Methods: This article presents an overview of the irrigant agitation methods currently available and their debridement efficacy. Results: Technological advances during the last decade have brought to fruition new agitation devices that rely on various mechanisms of irrigant transfer, soft tissue debridement, and, depending on treatment philosophy, removal of smear layers. These devices might be divided into the manual and machine-assisted agitation systems. Overall, they appear to have resulted in improved canal cleanliness when compared with conventional syringe needle irrigation. Despite the plethora of in vitro studies, no well-controlled study is available. This raises imperative concerns on the need for studies that could more effectively evaluate specific irrigation methods by using standardized debris or biofilm models. In addition, no evidence-based study is available to date that attempts to correlate the clinical efficacy of these devices with improved treatment outcomes. Thus, the question of whether these devices are really necessary remains unresolved. There also appears to be the need to refocus from a practice management perspective on how these devices are perceived by clinicians in terms of their practicality and ease of use. Conclusions: Understanding these fundamental issues is crucial for clinical scientists to improve the design and user-friendliness of future generations of irrigant agitation systems and for manufacturers' contentions that these systems play a pivotal role in contemporary endodontics.

KW - Agitation

KW - debris

KW - irrigation

KW - machine-assisted

KW - manual

KW - smear layer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=65849408494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=65849408494&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.joen.2009.03.010

DO - 10.1016/j.joen.2009.03.010

M3 - Review article

C2 - 19482174

AN - SCOPUS:65849408494

VL - 35

SP - 791

EP - 804

JO - Journal of Endodontics

JF - Journal of Endodontics

SN - 0099-2399

IS - 6

ER -