Cargando…
A Comparative Assessment of Three Different Irrigating Systems in Root Canal Treatment: An In vitro Study
BACKGROUND: Exact diagnosis, efficient cleaning, shaping as well as disinfection of the root canals lead to successful root canal treatment. The present study compared three different irrigating systems in root canal treatment. METHODOLOGY: Sixty recently extracted permanent mandibular molars were c...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8375850/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34447126 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_587_20 |
_version_ | 1783740380995387392 |
---|---|
author | Mandhotra, Prabhat Rai, Kulwant Grewal, Gurkirat Singh Singh, Kanwarpreet Galhotra, Vineet Gagan, Neel |
author_facet | Mandhotra, Prabhat Rai, Kulwant Grewal, Gurkirat Singh Singh, Kanwarpreet Galhotra, Vineet Gagan, Neel |
author_sort | Mandhotra, Prabhat |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Exact diagnosis, efficient cleaning, shaping as well as disinfection of the root canals lead to successful root canal treatment. The present study compared three different irrigating systems in root canal treatment. METHODOLOGY: Sixty recently extracted permanent mandibular molars were classified into four groups: Group I, II, III, and IV with 15 teeth each. Group I comprised Endo-Irrigator Plus system. Group II comprised EndoActivator, Group III utilized passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and Group IV was control, in which no activation of the irrigant was done. Stereomicroscope (X20) magnification was used for checking isthmus cleanliness. The scoring criteria were divided into score 1–5 depending on the amount of debris in root canal walls. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation debris removal score in Group I was 2.6 ± 0.80, in Group II was 3.8 ± 0.72, in Group III was 3.9 ± 1.06, and in Group IV was 4.2 ± 0.82. The difference was significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Authors found that Endo-Irrigator Plus exhibited better cleaning efficacy followed by EndoActivator and PUI. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8375850 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83758502021-08-25 A Comparative Assessment of Three Different Irrigating Systems in Root Canal Treatment: An In vitro Study Mandhotra, Prabhat Rai, Kulwant Grewal, Gurkirat Singh Singh, Kanwarpreet Galhotra, Vineet Gagan, Neel J Pharm Bioallied Sci Original Article BACKGROUND: Exact diagnosis, efficient cleaning, shaping as well as disinfection of the root canals lead to successful root canal treatment. The present study compared three different irrigating systems in root canal treatment. METHODOLOGY: Sixty recently extracted permanent mandibular molars were classified into four groups: Group I, II, III, and IV with 15 teeth each. Group I comprised Endo-Irrigator Plus system. Group II comprised EndoActivator, Group III utilized passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and Group IV was control, in which no activation of the irrigant was done. Stereomicroscope (X20) magnification was used for checking isthmus cleanliness. The scoring criteria were divided into score 1–5 depending on the amount of debris in root canal walls. RESULTS: The mean ± standard deviation debris removal score in Group I was 2.6 ± 0.80, in Group II was 3.8 ± 0.72, in Group III was 3.9 ± 1.06, and in Group IV was 4.2 ± 0.82. The difference was significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Authors found that Endo-Irrigator Plus exhibited better cleaning efficacy followed by EndoActivator and PUI. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021-06 2021-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8375850/ /pubmed/34447126 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_587_20 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Mandhotra, Prabhat Rai, Kulwant Grewal, Gurkirat Singh Singh, Kanwarpreet Galhotra, Vineet Gagan, Neel A Comparative Assessment of Three Different Irrigating Systems in Root Canal Treatment: An In vitro Study |
title | A Comparative Assessment of Three Different Irrigating Systems in Root Canal Treatment: An In vitro Study |
title_full | A Comparative Assessment of Three Different Irrigating Systems in Root Canal Treatment: An In vitro Study |
title_fullStr | A Comparative Assessment of Three Different Irrigating Systems in Root Canal Treatment: An In vitro Study |
title_full_unstemmed | A Comparative Assessment of Three Different Irrigating Systems in Root Canal Treatment: An In vitro Study |
title_short | A Comparative Assessment of Three Different Irrigating Systems in Root Canal Treatment: An In vitro Study |
title_sort | comparative assessment of three different irrigating systems in root canal treatment: an in vitro study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8375850/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34447126 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_587_20 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mandhotraprabhat acomparativeassessmentofthreedifferentirrigatingsystemsinrootcanaltreatmentaninvitrostudy AT raikulwant acomparativeassessmentofthreedifferentirrigatingsystemsinrootcanaltreatmentaninvitrostudy AT grewalgurkiratsingh acomparativeassessmentofthreedifferentirrigatingsystemsinrootcanaltreatmentaninvitrostudy AT singhkanwarpreet acomparativeassessmentofthreedifferentirrigatingsystemsinrootcanaltreatmentaninvitrostudy AT galhotravineet acomparativeassessmentofthreedifferentirrigatingsystemsinrootcanaltreatmentaninvitrostudy AT gaganneel acomparativeassessmentofthreedifferentirrigatingsystemsinrootcanaltreatmentaninvitrostudy AT mandhotraprabhat comparativeassessmentofthreedifferentirrigatingsystemsinrootcanaltreatmentaninvitrostudy AT raikulwant comparativeassessmentofthreedifferentirrigatingsystemsinrootcanaltreatmentaninvitrostudy AT grewalgurkiratsingh comparativeassessmentofthreedifferentirrigatingsystemsinrootcanaltreatmentaninvitrostudy AT singhkanwarpreet comparativeassessmentofthreedifferentirrigatingsystemsinrootcanaltreatmentaninvitrostudy AT galhotravineet comparativeassessmentofthreedifferentirrigatingsystemsinrootcanaltreatmentaninvitrostudy AT gaganneel comparativeassessmentofthreedifferentirrigatingsystemsinrootcanaltreatmentaninvitrostudy |