Effects of seven different irrigation techniques on debris and the smear layer: a scanning electron microscopy study

Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ultrasonically-activated irrigation (UAI) is effective in root canal irrigation but may damage canal walls. EDDY is a sonic activation system with flexible working tips that cause no harm to dentinal walls. This review explores the intracanal cleaning efficacy of EDDY compared with UAI in vitro.

METHODS

The systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021235826). A literature search was conducted in six electronic databases. In vitro studies that compared the removal of smear layer, debris, soft tissue or microbes in root canals between EDDY and UAI were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed. Meta-analyses were conducted on smear layer removal and debris elimination with the standardized mean difference (SMD). Heterogeneity was measured using the I² test and the Chi² test. The random-effect model was used when I² > 50%, or p < 0.1, otherwise the fixed-effect model was applied. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

19 articles were included in this systematic review and 7 articles were included in meta-analyses. Meta-analyses on smear layer removal showed unimportant differences between EDDY and UAI at any canal third (coronal [SMD = 0.08, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -0.29 to 0.45; p = 0.44, I² = 0%]; middle [SMD = 0.02, 95% CI: -0.44 to 0.47; p = 0.94, I² = 0%]; apical [SMD = 0.01, 95%CI: -0.35 to 0.38; p = 0.70, I² = 0%]). Meta-analyses on debris removal evaluated by scanning electron microscope (coronal [SMD = 0.03, 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.46; p = 0.27, I² = 23%]; middle [SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.83 to 0.35; p = 0.80, I² = 0%]; apical [SMD = 0.24, 95%CI: -0.20 to 0.67; p = 0.36, I² = 2%]) and micro-CT (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI: -0.67 to 1.40; p = 0.03, I² = 70%) both found insignificant differences. No meta-analysis was undertaken on soft-tissue removal and disinfection due to the various study designs, but the qualitative analyses implied that EDDY achieved similar performance to UAI in both aspects.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence indicated that EDDY was comparable to UAI in removing smear layer, debris, soft tissue and microbes ex vivo. Considering UAI may damage canal walls, EDDY might be a substitute for UAI in irrigation activation. But more randomized clinical trials are required to explore the clinical extrapolation of the results in this review.

Efficacy of Different Endodontic Irrigant Activation Systems on Smear Layer Removal and Canal Cleanliness: Comparative Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

AIM: This study assessed the effectiveness of 5 different irrigant activation systems on canal cleanliness and removal of smear layer from root canals. METHODS: A total of 110 mandibular premolars with straight root canal were assigned to five groups (n = 20): conventional needle irrigation, passive ultrasonic activation, sonic activation with EndoActivator, negative apical pressure EndoVac (EV), or EDDY system, besides a control group (n = 10). All teeth were prepared to size 40, and irrigated with NaOCl (5.25%) according to the respective technique. Roots were split longitudinally and subjected to scanning electron microscopic analysis. The presence of smear layer and debris was evaluated using 5-grade scoring systems with ×1000 and ×400 magnification, respectively. Data were analyzed at 5%. RESULTS: Regarding the smear layer, activation with EV and ED was significantly more effective than other activation groups (p < 0.05). Activation of the irrigant significantly improved removal of debris (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: No activation technique was able to eliminate smear layer and debris completely from root canals, nevertheless, EDDY is significantly better in removing debris and smear layer from the apical third of the canal.

Investigation of an Improved Side-Vented Needle and Corresponding Irrigation Strategy for Root Canal Therapy with CFD Method

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This research aimed to present an improved side-vented needle and explore its availability as well as the corresponding irrigation strategy.

METHODS

A CFD model was used to simulate the irrigant flow in a simplified prepared round root canal with an apical delta respectively with different needles for irrigation. The needle types include flat end-tip needle, original side-vented needle, and improved side-vented needle. Different insertion depths and inlet velocities were contrastively studied, as well as the gap size between the bulb at the end tip of the improved side-vented needle and the root canal. The study includes a total of 13 schemes. Velocity, pressure, and shear stress in the root canal were measured to contrast the internal flow-field details and irrigation efficiencies between different schemes.

RESULTS

Poor irrigation replacement appeared in the schemes without enough needle insertion no matter which kind of needle has been used, though relatively lower pressure emerged at the apical foramen. On the contrary, deepening needle insertion not only brings better irrigant replacement but also higher apical foramen pressure. The original side-vented needle tends to make lower pressure at the apical foramen and simultaneously worse irrigant replacement as compared to the flat end-tip needle. The fluid entering the apical anatomy part deceases a lot as the original side-vented needle was replaced by the improved one. The scheme using the improved side-vented needle with gap size ratio and inlet velocity respectively equaling 5.0% and 5.50m/s can be considered the best one.

CONCLUSIONS

The improved side-vented needle can ensure acceptable irrigant replacement performance without leading to a high-pressure level at the apical foramen. The gap between the bulb and the wall of the root canal is very crucial for the pressure at the apical. The ideal irrigation strategy is ensuring the gap equals zero. However, it is a little hard to realize during the whole procedure of the root canal preparation except the final step. Consequently, another strategy that keeping the value of gap size ratio as small as possible such as less than 15% and simultaneously ensuring lower-velocity coming fluid, is necessary in the non-final irrigation.