Evaluation of apically extruded debris using positive and negative pressure irrigation systems in association with different irrigants

17Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This study evaluated the amount of apically extruded debris after chemo-mechanical preparation (CMP) using positive and negative pressure irrigation systems [Conventional irrigation (CI) and EndoVac (EV)] in association with different irrigants [6% Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl), 2% Chlorhexidine gel + saline solution (CHXg + SS), 2% Chlorhexidine solution (CHXs) or Saline solution (SS)]. Eighty mandibular premolars with single root canals were selected and randomly assigned into 8 groups (n = 10) according to the irrigation system and the irrigant used during CMP: G1 (EV + NaOCl), G2 (EV + CHXg + SS), G3 (EV + CHXs), G4 (EV + SS), G5 (CI + NaOCl), G6 (CI + CHXg + SS), G7 (CI + CHXs) and G8 (CI + SS). Reciproc® R25 files (25/.08) were used during the CMP and the extruded debris from each tooth was collected in pre-weighted Eppendorf tubes and dried. The average weight of debris was assessed using a microbalance, and the data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and the post hoc Tukey’s test (α = 0.05). All groups were associated with debris extrusion. EV was the irrigation system with less extruded debris (p < 0.05). No differences were observed regarding the irrigant when EV was used. When CI was used, CHXg + SS were associated with lower debris extrusion (p < 0.05). It was concluded that no irrigation protocol succeeded in preventing debris extrusion. EV resulted in lower levels of debris extrusion than CI. The use of CHXg + SS resulted in lower debris extrusion.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Barbosa-Ribeiro, M., Arruda-Vasconcelos, R., Fabretti, F. L., Silva, E. J. N. L., De-Deus, G., & Gomes, B. P. F. A. (2018). Evaluation of apically extruded debris using positive and negative pressure irrigation systems in association with different irrigants. Brazilian Dental Journal, 29(2), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201801750

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free