Citation Information :
Yadav P, Virdi MS, Saini C. Comparison of Debridement Efficacy of Two Irrigating Systems Endovac and Conventional Needle in Primary Tooth Root Canals: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (11):1219-1223.
Aim: The purpose of the study is to evaluate how well the Endovac system and conventional needle irrigation work to remove smear layers (SR) from primary teeth root canals.
Materials and methods: Fifty extracted human primary teeth were divided into two equal sections vertically, then positioned within an acrylic model that was secured with screws. Group A (Endovac), n = 25, and group B (traditional needle), n = 25. Next, a uniform irrigation technique was used in every tooth embedded in the study model. Sections were examined with a 100× magnification stereomicroscope and electron microscope. Statistical tests were used to analyze the data.
Results: Endovac removed the SR from the apical third of the root canal system more successfully than a traditional needle (<0.05).
Conclusion: Endovac has better performance than conventional needle irrigation in the removal of the SR in the deciduous teeth root canal system.
Clinical significance: (1) Removing the SR allows for more cleaning and disinfecting of root canal walls and better adaptation of root canal filling materials. (2) It is essential to remove the entire SR from the root dentin for successful endodontic treatment.
Wigler R, Srour Y, Wilchfort Y, et al. Debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a comparative study of ultrasonic and sonic irrigant activation techniques. Dent J (Basel) 2024;12(3):51. DOI: 10.3390/dj12030051
Yeung W, Raldi DP, Cunha RS, et al. Assessment of smear layer removal protocols in curved root canals. Aust Endod J 2014;40:66–71. DOI: 10.1111/aej.12038
Ahmed HMA. Anatomical challenges, electronic working length determination and current developments in root canal preparation of primary molar teeth. Int Endod J 2013;46:1011–1022. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12134
Barcelos R, Tannure PN, Gleiser R, et al. The influence of smear layer removal on primary tooth pulpectomy outcome: a 24-month, double-blind, randomized, and controlled clinical trial evaluation. Int J Paediatr Dent 2012;22:369–381. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2011.01210.x
Subramaniam P, Gilhotra K. Endoflas, zinc oxide eugenol and metapex as root canal filling materials in primary molars—a comparative clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2011;35:365–369. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.4.1377v06621143233
Ballal NV, Kandian S, Mala K, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of maleic acid and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid in smear layer removal from instrumented human root canal: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2009;35:1573–1576. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.07.021
Huth KC, Jakob FM, Saugel B, et al. Effect of ozone on oral cells compared with established antimicrobials. Eur J Oral Sci 2006;114:435–440. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2006.00390.x
Hülsmann M, Rümmelin C, Schäfers F. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative SEM investigation. J Endod 1997;23(5):301–306. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80410-4
Moskovitz M, Sammara E, Holan G. Success rate of root canal treatment in primary molars. J Dent 2005;33:41–47. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.07.009
Gowrish S, Sodvadiya U, Sadananda V. Super-oxidized water against conventional irrigants in smear layer removal using endovac irrigating system: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int J Dentistry Oral Sci 2021;8:4275–4279.
Nagayoshi M, Kitamura C, Fukuizumi T, et al. Antimicrobial effect of ozonated water on bacteria invading dentinal tubules. J Endod 2004;30:778–781. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200411000-00007
Siqueira JF Jr, Rôças IN, Santos SRLD, et al. Efficacy of instrumentation techniques and irrigation regimens in reducing the bacterial population within root canals. J Endod 2002;28:181–184. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200203000-00009
McComb D, Smith DC. A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod 1975;1:238–242. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(75)80226-3
