Root canal debridement using manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for final irrigation in a closed system and an open system

J. M. Parente, R. J. Loushine, Lisiane Ferreira Susin, L. Gu, Stephen Warwick Looney, R. N. Weller, David Henry Pashley, Franklin Chi Meng Tay

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim This study examined canal debridement efficacy by testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference between a 'Closed' and an 'Open' system design in smear layer and debris removal using either manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for irrigant delivery.Methodology Forty teeth were divided into four groups and submitted to a standardized instrumentation protocol. Final irrigation was performed with either manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac on groups of teeth with or without a sealed apical foramen. Smear and debris scores were evaluated using SEM and analysed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic.Results The ability of manual dynamic agitation to remove smear layer and debris in a closed canal system was significantly less effective than in an open canal system and significantly less effective than the EndoVac (P < 0.001).Conclusion The null hypothesis was rejected; the presence of a sealed apical foramen adversely affected debridement efficacy when using manual dynamic agitation but not the EndoVac. Apical negative pressure irrigation is an effective method to overcome the fluid dynamics challenges inherent in closed canal systems.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1001-1012
Number of pages12
JournalInternational Endodontic Journal
Volume43
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2010

Fingerprint

Tooth Apex
Smear Layer
Dental Pulp Cavity
Debridement
Tooth
Hydrodynamics
Pressure

Keywords

  • Debris
  • EndoVac
  • Irrigation
  • Root canal
  • Smear layer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Root canal debridement using manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for final irrigation in a closed system and an open system. / Parente, J. M.; Loushine, R. J.; Ferreira Susin, Lisiane; Gu, L.; Looney, Stephen Warwick; Weller, R. N.; Pashley, David Henry; Tay, Franklin Chi Meng.

In: International Endodontic Journal, Vol. 43, No. 11, 01.11.2010, p. 1001-1012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Parente, J. M. ; Loushine, R. J. ; Ferreira Susin, Lisiane ; Gu, L. ; Looney, Stephen Warwick ; Weller, R. N. ; Pashley, David Henry ; Tay, Franklin Chi Meng. / Root canal debridement using manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for final irrigation in a closed system and an open system. In: International Endodontic Journal. 2010 ; Vol. 43, No. 11. pp. 1001-1012.
@article{1bd6d89ad34f422f9cbb86e30e08711c,
title = "Root canal debridement using manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for final irrigation in a closed system and an open system",
abstract = "Aim This study examined canal debridement efficacy by testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference between a 'Closed' and an 'Open' system design in smear layer and debris removal using either manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for irrigant delivery.Methodology Forty teeth were divided into four groups and submitted to a standardized instrumentation protocol. Final irrigation was performed with either manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac on groups of teeth with or without a sealed apical foramen. Smear and debris scores were evaluated using SEM and analysed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic.Results The ability of manual dynamic agitation to remove smear layer and debris in a closed canal system was significantly less effective than in an open canal system and significantly less effective than the EndoVac (P < 0.001).Conclusion The null hypothesis was rejected; the presence of a sealed apical foramen adversely affected debridement efficacy when using manual dynamic agitation but not the EndoVac. Apical negative pressure irrigation is an effective method to overcome the fluid dynamics challenges inherent in closed canal systems.",
keywords = "Debris, EndoVac, Irrigation, Root canal, Smear layer",
author = "Parente, {J. M.} and Loushine, {R. J.} and {Ferreira Susin}, Lisiane and L. Gu and Looney, {Stephen Warwick} and Weller, {R. N.} and Pashley, {David Henry} and Tay, {Franklin Chi Meng}",
year = "2010",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01755.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "1001--1012",
journal = "International Endodontic Journal",
issn = "0143-2885",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Root canal debridement using manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for final irrigation in a closed system and an open system

AU - Parente, J. M.

AU - Loushine, R. J.

AU - Ferreira Susin, Lisiane

AU - Gu, L.

AU - Looney, Stephen Warwick

AU - Weller, R. N.

AU - Pashley, David Henry

AU - Tay, Franklin Chi Meng

PY - 2010/11/1

Y1 - 2010/11/1

N2 - Aim This study examined canal debridement efficacy by testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference between a 'Closed' and an 'Open' system design in smear layer and debris removal using either manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for irrigant delivery.Methodology Forty teeth were divided into four groups and submitted to a standardized instrumentation protocol. Final irrigation was performed with either manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac on groups of teeth with or without a sealed apical foramen. Smear and debris scores were evaluated using SEM and analysed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic.Results The ability of manual dynamic agitation to remove smear layer and debris in a closed canal system was significantly less effective than in an open canal system and significantly less effective than the EndoVac (P < 0.001).Conclusion The null hypothesis was rejected; the presence of a sealed apical foramen adversely affected debridement efficacy when using manual dynamic agitation but not the EndoVac. Apical negative pressure irrigation is an effective method to overcome the fluid dynamics challenges inherent in closed canal systems.

AB - Aim This study examined canal debridement efficacy by testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference between a 'Closed' and an 'Open' system design in smear layer and debris removal using either manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for irrigant delivery.Methodology Forty teeth were divided into four groups and submitted to a standardized instrumentation protocol. Final irrigation was performed with either manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac on groups of teeth with or without a sealed apical foramen. Smear and debris scores were evaluated using SEM and analysed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic.Results The ability of manual dynamic agitation to remove smear layer and debris in a closed canal system was significantly less effective than in an open canal system and significantly less effective than the EndoVac (P < 0.001).Conclusion The null hypothesis was rejected; the presence of a sealed apical foramen adversely affected debridement efficacy when using manual dynamic agitation but not the EndoVac. Apical negative pressure irrigation is an effective method to overcome the fluid dynamics challenges inherent in closed canal systems.

KW - Debris

KW - EndoVac

KW - Irrigation

KW - Root canal

KW - Smear layer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78649480250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78649480250&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01755.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01755.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 20722753

AN - SCOPUS:78649480250

VL - 43

SP - 1001

EP - 1012

JO - International Endodontic Journal

JF - International Endodontic Journal

SN - 0143-2885

IS - 11

ER -