Root canal debridement using manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for final irrigation in a closed system and an open system

Parente JM, Loushine RJ, Susin L, Gu L, Looney SW, Weller RN, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Root canal debridement using manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for final irrigation in a closed system and an open system. International Endodontic Journal, 43, 1001–1012, 2010. Aim  This study examined canal deb...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International endodontic journal 2010-11, Vol.43 (11), p.1001-1012
Main Authors: Parente, J. M., Loushine, R. J., Susin, L., Gu, L., Looney, S. W., Weller, R. N., Pashley, D. H., Tay, F. R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Chelating Agents - administration & dosage
Debridement
debris
Dental Pulp Cavity - pathology
Dentin - pathology
Dentistry
Edetic Acid - administration & dosage
EndoVac
Equipment Design
Humans
irrigation
Materials Testing
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Pressure
Rheology
root canal
Root Canal Irrigants - administration & dosage
Root Canal Preparation - instrumentation
Root Canal Preparation - methods
Smear Layer
Sodium Hypochlorite - administration & dosage
Suction - instrumentation
Therapeutic Irrigation - instrumentation
Time Factors
Tooth Apex - pathology
Vacuum
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Parente JM, Loushine RJ, Susin L, Gu L, Looney SW, Weller RN, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Root canal debridement using manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for final irrigation in a closed system and an open system. International Endodontic Journal, 43, 1001–1012, 2010. Aim  This study examined canal debridement efficacy by testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference between a ‘Closed’ and an ‘Open’ system design in smear layer and debris removal using either manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac for irrigant delivery. Methodology  Forty teeth were divided into four groups and submitted to a standardized instrumentation protocol. Final irrigation was performed with either manual dynamic agitation or the EndoVac on groups of teeth with or without a sealed apical foramen. Smear and debris scores were evaluated using SEM and analysed using Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel statistic. Results  The ability of manual dynamic agitation to remove smear layer and debris in a closed canal system was significantly less effective than in an open canal system and significantly less effective than the EndoVac (P 
ISSN:0143-2885
1365-2591
DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01755.x