Comparative evaluation of debris removal from root canal wall by using EndoVac and conventional needle irrigation: An in vitro study

• Main Authors: Vandana J Gade, Shweta K Sedani, Jyoti S Lokade, Leena D Belsare, Jaykumar R Gade
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2013-01-01
• Series: Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
• Subjects: Conventional irrigation; EndoVac irrigation system; negative apical pressure; positive apical pressure; root canal irrigation; vapor lock
• Online Access: http://www.contempclindent.org/article.asp?issn=0976-237X;year=2013;volume=4;issue=4;spage=432;epage=436;aulast=Gade

Context: Microbial control is of paramount importance in Clinical Endodontics. Therefore, cleaning and disinfection of root canals are essential to achieve endodontic success. Aims: The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy of EndoVac irrigation system and conventional needle (30 gauges side venting needle) irrigation for removal of debris from the root canal walls at coronal, middle and apical third by using the scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Settings and Design: An in vitro randomized control trial study. Materials and Methods: A total of 20 mandibular premolars with completely formed roots were selected and randomly divided into two groups - Group 1: Irrigation with the Conventional system and Group 2: EndoVac irrigation. After access opening and working length determination biomechanical preparation completed up to a rotary protaper F4 file. Groupwise irrigation with sodium hypochlorite and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid was done with each canal in between instrumentation. Then, the teeth were sectioned in buccolingual direction and the halves were sputter-coated with gold palladium and coronal, middle and apical third were examined by SEM at x2000 magnification. Statistical Analysis: Mann-Whitney test for comparison between methods, Kruskal-Wallis test for comparison among thirds and Miller test for individual comparisons. Results: The apical, middle and cervical root canal thirds were evaluated and the results were analyzed statistically by the Mann-Whitney test for comparison between methods, Kruskal-Wallis test for comparison among thirds and Miller test for individual comparisons. Conclusions: EndoVac group resulted in significantly less debris at apical third compared with the conventional needle irrigation group. There was no statistical significant difference found in debris removal at coronal and middle third of root canal wall between the EndoVac group and conventional needle irrigation group.