» Articles » PMID: 22892747

Comparison of a Continuous Ultrasonic Irrigation Device and Conventional Needle Irrigation in the Removal of Root Canal Debris

Overview
Journal J Endod
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2012 Aug 16
PMID 22892747
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare a continuous ultrasonic irrigation device (VPro StreamClean System [VSS], Vista Dental Products, Racine, WI) with conventional needle irrigation when used as a final irrigation procedure to debride the apical region of the root canal. The null hypothesis that there is no difference was tested.

Methods: Root canals of matched pairs (N = 20) of extracted human teeth were prepared to an apical size of 36/.04 using Profile series 29/.04 rotary files (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK) with 6% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) irrigation. One tooth of each pair was randomly assigned to receive final irrigation with either VSS or conventional needle irrigation. The gauge of the needle (#30), the irrigation cycles (ie, 5 mL NaOCl, 5 mL 15% EDTA, and 5 mL NaOCl), the irrigant flow rate (5 mL/min), and needle depth placement (1 mm from the working length [WL]) were experimental constants. Serial sections were obtained at 1 and 3 mm from the WL, stained with hematoxylin-eosin, and viewed at 100× magnification for the presence of debris. The percentage of debris in the canal lumen after VSS or conventional needle irrigation was compared by using the Wilcoxon matched pairs test.

Results: There was significantly less debris in the VSS group compared with the conventional needle irrigation group at the 1-mm level (1.50% [VSS] vs 9.90% [conventional needle irrigation], P = .0001) and the 3-mm level (0.45% [VSS] vs 5.16% [conventional needle irrigation], P = .0014). The null hypothesis was rejected.

Conclusions: Final irrigation with the VSS compared with conventional needle irrigation delivery resulted in significantly less debris present in root canals at 1 and 3 mm from the WL.

Citing Articles

Evaluating the Preventive and Therapeutic Roles of Active Irrigation Systems in Root Canal Treatment: A Narrative Review and Critical Appraisal of Theory and Methodology.

Barbero-Navarro I, Sofian-Pauliuc I, Irigoyen-Camacho M, Zepeda-Zepeda M, Ribas-Perez D, Castano-Seiquer A Dent J (Basel). 2025; 13(1.

PMID: 39851585 PMC: 11763903. DOI: 10.3390/dj13010009.


Cleaning and Disinfecting Oval-Shaped Root Canals: Ex Vivo Evaluation of Three Rotary Instrumentation Systems with Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation.

Li Y, Wang Z, Bao P, Meng T, Liu M, Li H Medicina (Kaunas). 2023; 59(5).

PMID: 37241194 PMC: 10220979. DOI: 10.3390/medicina59050962.


Postoperative pain in root canal treatment with ultrasonic versus conventional irrigation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Chalub L, Nunes G, Ferrisse T, Strazzi-Sahyon H, Dos Santos P, Gomes-Filho J Clin Oral Investig. 2022; 26(4):3343-3356.

PMID: 35091819 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04386-0.


Effectiveness of ultrasonically activated irrigation on root canal disinfection: a systematic review of in vitro studies.

Nagendrababu V, Jayaraman J, Suresh A, Kalyanasundaram S, Neelakantan P Clin Oral Investig. 2018; 22(2):655-670.

PMID: 29372445 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2345-x.


The use of auxiliary devices during irrigation to increase the cleaning ability of a chelating agent.

Prado M, Leal F, Simao R, Gusman H, do Prado M Restor Dent Endod. 2017; 42(2):105-110.

PMID: 28503475 PMC: 5426214. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.105.