Citation Information :
Badnaware SD, Kakade A, Takate V, Juneja A, Shetty H, Santosh A, Khairnar MR. In Vitro Efficacy of Apical Negative Pressure Irrigation in Primary Teeth: A Smear Layer Analysis. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (6):653-657.
Aim and background: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of root canal debris removal in primary teeth through irrigation using the Endo-Irrigator Plus (CWAIS).
Materials and methods: A total of 25 primary mandibular first molars were divided into five groups, with five teeth in each group. After determining the working length and performing biomechanical preparation, groups I and II were subjected to hand and rotary instrumentation (ProTaper, Dentsply, United States of America) with conventional syringe irrigation with positive pressure, while groups III and IV were instrumented using hand and rotary instrumentation with positive and negative pressure irrigation employing the Endo-Irrigator Plus (CWAIS) system. Sodium hypochlorite (5.25%) and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (17%) were used as irrigants. Group V served as the control group, undergoing only root canal access opening. The removal of the smear layer was analyzed at the cervical, middle, and apical thirds of the canal using environmental scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
Results: Statistically significant differences were observed among all groups at the cervical, middle, and apical levels (p < 0.05). Groups III and IV exhibited significantly lower smear scores at all levels, particularly in the apical third, as observed through SEM examination.
Conclusion: The use of the Endo-Irrigator Plus (CWAIS) system demonstrated superior debridement of intracanal debris in primary teeth compared to the positive pressure irrigation method.
Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Qian W, et al. Irrigation in endodontics. Dent Clin 2010;54(2):291–312. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2009.12.001
Baumgartner JC, Mader CL. A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of four root canal irrigation regimens. J Endod 1987;13(4):147–157. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(87)80132-2
Ahmed HM. Anatomical challenges, electronic working length determination and current developments in root canal preparation of primary molar teeth. Int Endod J 2013;46(11):1011–1022. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12134
Goerig AC, Camp JH. Root canal treatment in primary teeth: a review. Pediatr Dent 1983;5(1):33–37.
Coll JA, Josell S, Casper JS. Evaluation of a one-appointment formocresol pulpectomy technique for primary molars. Pediatr Dent 1985;7(2):123–129.
Lin LM, Pascon EA, Skribner J, et al. Clinical, radiographic, and histologic study of endodontic treatment failures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1991;71(5):603–611. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(91)90371-i
Siqueira JF, Araújo MC, Garcia PF, et al. Histological evaluation of the effectiveness of five instrumentation techniques for cleaning the apical third of root canals. J Endod 1997;23(8):499–492. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80309-3
Boutsioukis C, Lambrianidis T, Kastrinakis E. Irrignat flow within a prepared root canal using various flow rates: a computational fluid dynamics study. Int Endod J 2009;42(2):144–155. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01503.x
Nielsen BA, Baumgartner JC. Comparison of the EndoVac system to needle irrigation of root canals. J Endod 2007;33(5):611–615.
Hulsmann 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
Iriboz E, Bayraktar K, Turkaydin D, et al. Comparison of the efficacies of debris removal with four different irrigation techniques. J Curr Surg 2014;4(3):70–75. DOI: 10.14740/jcs242e
Srivastava I, Srivastava S, Grover R, et al. Comparative evaluation of efficacy of different irrigating needles and devices in removal of debris from apical third of root canal: an in vitro SEM study. Contemp Clin Dent 2021;12(3):222–229. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_468_20
Albrecht LJ, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Evaluation of apical debris removal using various sizes and tapers of ProFile GT files. J Endod 2004;30(6):425–428. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200406000-00012
Mandhotra P, Rai K, Grewal GS, et al. A comparative assessment of three different irrigating systems in root canal treatment: an in vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2021;13(Suppl 1):S429–S431. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_587_20
Sirtes G, Waltimo T, Schaetzle M, et al. The effects of temperature on sodium hypochlorite short-term stability, pulp dissolution capacity, and antimicrobial efficacy. J Endod 2005;31(9):669–671. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000153846.62144.d2
Cunningham WT, Balekjian AY. Effect of temperature on collagen-dissolving ability of sodium hypochlorite endodontic irrigant. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1980;49(2):175–177. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(80)90313-8
Neelakantan P, Devaraj S, Jagannathan N. Histologic assessment of debridement of the root canal isthmus of mandibular molars by irrigant activation techniques ex vivo. J Endod 2016;42(8):1268–1272. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.05.005
Shetty VP, Naik BD, Pachlag AK, et al. Comparative evaluation of the amount of debris extruded apically using conventional syringe, passive ultrasonic irrigation and EndoIrrigator plus system: an in vitro study. J Conservat Dent 2017;20(6):411–414. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_200_17
Siu C, Baumgartner JC. Comparison of the debridement efficacy of the EndoVac irrigation system and conventional needle root canal irrigation in vivo. J Endod 2010;36(11):1782–1785. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.023
