International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE S2 ( September, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Conventional to EndoVac: A Comparative Evaluation of Two Irrigation Systems in Microbial Reduction of Primary Root Canals Using Chemical Irrigants: An In Vivo Study

Madina Ahmadi, Somya Govil

Keywords : Antibacterial efficacy, Chlorhexidine, EndoVac, Microbial reduction, Sodium hypochlorite

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2565

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-11-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Purpose: The purpose of this in vivo study was to compare the relative efficacy of two different chemical irrigants in achieving the same objective of bacteria decrease in deciduous teeth. The classic needle irrigation system and the EndoVac system were chemical irrigants. Materials and methods: In this comparative study, 80 deciduous molars in patients aged 3–9 years were chosen according to the selection criteria. The teeth were divided randomly into four groups based on the irrigation system and irrigant used, namely, the group I [2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) + conventional needle], group II (2.5% NaOCl + EndoVac), group III [2% chlorhexidine (CHX) + conventional needle], and group IV (2% CHX + EndoVac). Pre and postirrigation microbial samples were collected and transferred for microbial assay. Thereafter, pre and postoperative observations were recorded and a mean reduction of bacterial colony-forming units (CFU)/mL was obtained. The statistical analysis was then performed. Results: In the intragroup comparison, EndoVac and the conventional system showed a statistically significant (p > 0.05) reduction in mean CFU/mL. In the intergroup comparison, EndoVac showed better results than the conventional needle irrigation system (p > 0.05). There was more reduction in CFU in 2% CHX than in 2.5% NaOCl in both the conventional needle system (p = 0.3056) and the EndoVac system (p = 0.4573), with no significant difference. Conclusion: In this in vivo study, the efficacy of EndoVac was found to be better among all the tested groups. Around 2% CHX was found superior as compared to 2.5% NaOCl with no significant difference. Clinical significance: The EndoVac apical negative pressure irrigant system eliminates optimum bacterial load. It significantly cleans more debris from mechanically inaccessible regions of root canals. The use of 2% CHX has shown promising results due to its property of substantivity and acceptability by children.

  1. Buldur B, Kapdan A. Comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of the EndoVac system and conventional needle irrigation in primary molar root canals. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2017;41(4):284–288. DOI: 10.17796/1053-4628-41.4.284
  2. Chandwani M, Mittal R, Chandak S, et al. Effectiveness of Morinda citrifolia juice as an intracanal irrigant in deciduous molars: an in vivo study. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2017;14(4):246–251. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.211630
  3. Gondim JO, Avaca-Crusca JS, Valentini SR, et al. Effect of a calcium hydroxide/chlorhexidine paste as intracanal dressing in human primary teeth with necrotic pulp against Porphyromonas gingivalis and Enterococcus faecalis. Int J Paediatr Dent 2012;22(2):116–124. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2011.01174.x
  4. Nielsen BA, Craig Baumgartner J. Comparison of the EndoVac system to needle irrigation of root canals. J Endod 2007;33(5):611–615. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.01.020
  5. Siqueira JF Jr, Batista MM, Fraga RC, et al. Antibacterial effects of endodontic irrigants on black-pigmented gram-negative anaerobes and facultative bacteria. J Endod 1998;24(6):414–416. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80023-X
  6. Canoglu H, Tekcicek MU, Cehreli ZC. Comparison of conventional, rotary, and ultrasonic preparation, different final irrigation regimens, and 2 sealers in primary molar root canal therapy. Pediatric dentistry 2006;28(6):518–523.
  7. Buldur B, Kapdan A. Comparison of the EndoVac system and conventional needle irrigation on removal of the smear layer in primary molar root canals. Niger J Clin Pract 2017;20(9):1168–1174. DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.181351
  8. Louwakul P, Prucksathamrongkul W. The effect of 2% chlorhexidine as root canal irrigant in pulpectomies of primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2012;34(7):e192–e196.
  9. Barakat I, ElPatal MA, Abushanan A, et al. Antibacterial effect of metronidazole vs chlorhexidine solutions in treatment of root canals of primary anterior teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(4):396–399.
  10. Wu MK, van der Sluis LW, Wesselink PR. The capability of two hand instrumentation techniques to remove the inner layer of dentine in oval canals. Int Endod J 2003;36:218–224. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00646.x
  11. Walia V, Goswami M, Mishra S, et al. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of chlorhexidine, sodium hypochlorite, the diode laser and saline in reducing the microbial count in primary teeth root canals - an in vivo study. J Lasers Med Sci 2019;10(4):268–274. DOI: 10.15171/jlms.2019.44
  12. Siqueira Jr JF, Rôças IN, Favieri A, et al. Chemomechanical reduction of the bacterial population in the root canal after instrumentation and irrigation with 1%, 2.5%, and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite. J Endod 2000;26(6):331–334. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200006000-00006
  13. Mohammadi Z, Abbott PV. The properties and applications of chlorhexidine in endodontics. Int Endod J 2009;42(4): 288–302. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01540.x
  14. Ayhan H, Sultan N, Cirak M, et al. Antimicrobial effects of various endodontic irrigants on selected microorganisms. Int Endod J 1999;32(2):99–102. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00196.x
  15. Ringel AM, Patterson SS, Newton CW, et al. In vivo evaluation of chlorhexidine gluconate solution and sodium hypochlorite solution as root canal irrigants. J Endod 1982;8:200–204. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(82)80354-3
  16. Elakanti S, Cherukuri G, Rao VG, et al. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of QMixTM 2 in 1, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans. J Conserv Dent 2015;18(2):128–131. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.153067
  17. Luddin N, Ahmed HMA. The antibacterial activity of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis: a review on agar diffusion and direct contact methods. J Conserv Dent 2013;16(1):9–16. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.105291
  18. Siqueira JF Jr, Rôças IN, Santos SRL, 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
  19. Paiva SS, Siqueira Jr JF, Rôças IN, et al. Supplementing the antimicrobial effects of chemo-mechanical debridement with either passive ultrasonic irrigation or a final rinse with chlorhexidine: a clinical study. J Endod 2012;38(9):1202–1206. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.06.023
  20. Salman MI, Schütt-Gerowitt H. Comparisons among three supplementary irrigation techniques and a calcium hydroxide dressing for bacterial elimination after chemomechanical preparation using the self-adjusting file. Future Dental Journal 2016;2(1):37–40. DOI: 10.1016/j.fdj.2016.04.004
  21. Cohenca N, Heilborn C, Johnson JD, et al. Apical negative pressure irrigation versus conventional irrigation plus triantibiotic intracanal dressing on root canal disinfection in dog teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109(1):e42–e46. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.08.029
  22. Pawar R, Alqaied A, Safavi K, et al. Influence of an apical negative pressure irrigation system on bacterial elimination during endodontic therapy: a prospective randomized clinical study. J Endod 2012;38(9):1177–1181. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.06.013
  23. Hockett JL, Dommisch JK, Johnson JD, et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of two irrigation techniques in tapered and non-tapered canal preparations: an in vitro study. Journal of Endodontics 2008;34(11):1374–1377. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.07.022
  24. Gregorio C, Estevez R, Cisneros R, et al. Efficacy of different irrigation and activation systems on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into simulated lateral canals and up to working length: an in vitro study. Journal of Endodontics 2010;36(7):1216–1221. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.02.019
  25. Shin S, Kim H, Jung I, et al. Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of a new apical negative pressure irrigating system with conventional irrigation needles in the root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109(3):479–484. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.10.050
  26. Miranda RG, Santos EB, Souto RM, et al. Ex vivo antimicrobial efficacy of the E ndo V ac® system plus photodynamic therapy associated with calcium hydroxide against intracanal E nterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J 2013;46(6):499–505. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12016
  27. Shahsiah S, Azizi A, Moghimipour E, et al. Evaluation of tissue dissolution ability of modified chlorhexidine as a root canal irrigant. Biosci Biotech Res Com 2017;10(2):40–48. DOI: 10.21786/bbrc/10.2/7
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.