J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci.  2017 Jun;33(2):97-105. 10.14368/jdras.2017.33.2.97.

The efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation technique on debris removal during root canal treatment

• Kim JH
• Kim JW
• Cho KM
• Park SH

• KMID: 2388015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2017.33.2.97

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was comparing the efficacy of passive irrigation (PI) and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) for ability to remove debriment of canals.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Mandibular premolars were decoronated and standardized to 16 mm length. After root canal enlargement and half separating longitudinally, standardized groove of 4 mm length, 0.2 mm width and 0.5 mm depth were formed on the dentin wall of one half. Three depressions in the canal wall of the opposite half, 0.3 mm in diameter and 0.5 mm in depth, were formed. After each groove and depression was filled with dentin debris, two sections of each half were reassembled using impression putty material. In group 1 the canals were irrigated with 2.5% NaOCl by PI. In group 2 the canals were irrigated with 2.5% NaOCl by PUI. Before and after root canal irrigation, the root canal wall of the section was taken with a microscope and a digital camera as images. The amount of dentin debris remaining in grooves and depressions was assessed using a scoring system.
RESULTS
There was no significant difference between PI and PUI except for the middle 1/3 of the root canal (P = 0.004).
CONCLUSION
At the middle 1/3 of the root canal, PUI removed more dentine debris than PI. But the removal efficiency of dentin debris is not significantly different between the PUI and PI at the apical area of root canal in mandibular premolars.

Keyword

canal irrigation; dentine debris; mandibular premolar; passive irrigation; passive ultrasonic irrigation

MeSH Terms

Bicuspid
Dental Pulp Cavity*
Dentin
Depression
Ultrasonics*

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Schematic representation of specimen preparation. (A) On one half of the prepared root canal a groove was cut 2 to 6 mm from the apex, (B) On the other half three depressions were cut 2, 4 and 6 mm from the apex.

• 

  Fig. 2 Specimens after irrigation. Each sample represents a score according to the amount of remained dentin debris. (A) score 0, (B) score 1, (C) score 2, (D) score 3. Original magnification ×20.

Reference

References

1. Baugh D, Wallace J. The role of apical instrumentation in root canal treatment:a review of the literature. J Endod. 2005; 31:333–40. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000145422.94578.e6. PMID: 15851925.

2. Moorer WR, Wesselink PR. Factors promoting the tissue dissolving capability of sodium hypochlorite. Int Endod J. 1982; 15:187–96. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1982.tb01277.x.

3. Hand RE, Smith ML, Harrison JW. Analysis of the effect of dilution on the necrotic tissue dissolution property of sodium hypochlorite. J Endod. 1978; 4:60–4. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(78)80255-6.

4. Byström A, Sundqvist G. Bacteriologic evaluation of the effect of 0.5 percent sodium hypochlorite in endodontic therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1983; 55:307–12. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(83)90333-X.

5. Walker A. A definite and dependable therapy for pulpless teeth. J Am Dent Assoc. 1936; 23:1418–25.

6. Abou-Rass M, Piccinino MV. The effectiveness of four clinical irrigation methods on the removal of root canal debris. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1982; 54:323–8. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(82)90103-7.

7. Chow TW. Mechanical effectiveness of root canal irrigation. J Endod. 1983; 9:475–9. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(83)80162-9.

8. Walters MJ, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Efficacy of irrigation with rotary instrumentation. J Endod. 2002; 28:837–9. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200212000-00011. PMID: 12489655.

9. Sabins RA, Johnson JD, Hellstein JW. A comparison of the cleaning efficacy of short-term sonic and ultrasonic passive irrigation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod. 2003; 29:674–8. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200310000-00016. PMID: 14606795.

10. Lee SJ, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. The effectiveness of syringe irrigation and ultrasonics to remove debris from simulated irregularities within prepared root canal walls. Int Endod J. 2004; 37:672–8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00848.x. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00857.x.

11. Goodman A, Reader A, Beck M, Melfi R, Meyers W. An in vitro comparison of the efficacy of the step-back technique versus a step-back/ultrasonic technique in human mandibular molars. J Endod. 1985; 11:249–56. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(85)80180-1.

12. Siqueira JF Jr, Lopes HP. Mechanisms of antimicrobial activity of calcium hydroxide:a critical review. Int Endod J. 1999; 32:361–9. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00275.x.

13. Wu MK, Wesselink PR. A primary observation on the preparation and obturation of oval canals. Int Endod J. 2001; 34:137–41. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00361.x.

14. Wu MK, R’oris A, Barkis D, Wesselink PR. Prevalence and extent of long oval canals in the apical third. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000; 89:739–43. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2000.106344.

15. Hülsmann M, Schade M, Schäfers F. A comparative study of root canal preparation with HERO 642 and Quantec SC rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J. 2001; 34:538–46. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00431.x.

16. Walton RE. Histologic evaluation of different methods of enlarging the pulp canal space. J Endod. 1976; 2:304–11. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(76)80045-3.

17. Peters OA, Laib A, Göhring TN, Barbakow F. Changes in root canal geometry after preparation assessed by high-resolution computed tomography. J Endod. 2001; 27:1–6. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200101000-00001. PMID: 11487156.

18. Ardila CN, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Percentage of filled canal area in mandibular molars after conventional root-canal instrumentation and after a noninstrumentation technique (NIT). Int Endod J. 2003; 36:591–8. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00689.x. PMID: 12950572.

19. De-Deus G, Barino B, Zamolyi RQ, Souza E, Fonseca A Jr, Fidel S, Fidel RA. Suboptimal debridement quality produced by the single-file F2 ProTaper technique in oval-shaped canals. J Endod. 2010; 36:1897–900. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.009. PMID: 20951309.

20. Lumley PJ, Walmsley AD, Walton RE, Rippin JW. Cleaning of oval canals using ultrasonic or sonic instrumentation. J Endod. 1993; 19:453–7. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80532-7.

21. van der Sluis LW, Gambarini G, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. The influence of volume, type of irrigant and flushing method on removing artificially placed dentine debris from the apical root canal during passive ultrasonic irrigation. Int Endod J. 2006; 39:472–6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01108.x. PMID: 16674742.

22. Layton G, Wu WI, Selvaganapathy PR, Friedman S, Kishen A. Fluid dynamics and biofilm removal generated by syringe-delivered and 2 ultrasonic-assisted irrigation methods:a novel experimental approach. J Endod. 2015; 41:884–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.01.027. PMID: 25749254.

23. Ahmad M, Pitt Ford TJ, Crum LA. Ultrasonic debridement of root canals:acoustic streaming and its possible role. J Endod. 1987; 13:490–9. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(87)80016-X.

24. Stock CJ. Current status of the use of ultrasound in endodontics. Int Dent J. 1991; 41:175–82.

25. Baker NA, Eleazer PD, Averbach RE, Seltzer S. Scanning electron microscopic study of the efficacy of various irrigating solutions. J Endod. 1975; 1:12735. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(75)80097-5.

26. Conde AJ, Estevez R, Loroño G, Valencia de Pablo Ó, Rossi-Fedele G, Cisneros R. Effect of sonic and ultrasonic activation on organic tissue dissolution from simulated grooves in root canals using sodium hypochlorite and EDTA. Int Endod J. 2016; Nov. 3. doi:10.1111/iej.12717. [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12717.

27. Cunningham WT, Martin H, Pelleu GB Jr, Stoops DE. A comparison of antimicrobial effectiveness of endosonic and hand root canal therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1982; 54:238–41. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(82)90223-7.

28. Santos MD, Walker WA 3rd, Carnes DL Jr. Evaluation of apical seal in straight canals after obturation using the Lightspeed sectional method. J Endod. 1999; 25:609–12. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80212-X.

29. van der Sluis L, Wu MK, Wesselink P. Comparison of 2 flushing methods used during passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal. Quintessence Int. 2009; 40:875–9.