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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mandhotra, Prabhat, Rai, Kulwant, Grewal, Gurkirat Singh, Singh, Kanwarpreet, Galhotra, Vineet, Gagan, Neel
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