Quantitative comparison of calcium hydroxide removal by endoactivator, ultrasonic and protaper file agitation techniques: An in vitro study

Abstract

Calcium hydroxide (CH) dressing residues can compromise endodontic sealing. This study aimed to evaluate the amount of remaining CH in root canals after mechanical removal by four groups of irrigation techniques including needle irrigation only, ProTaper file, EndoActivator, and ultrasonic file. Fifteen extracted single-rooted teeth were collected and used for all four groups. The samples were firstly prepared by ProTaper rotary instruments, and then sectioned longitudinally through the long axis of the root canals, followed by final reassembling by wires. CH was kept in the canals for 7 days setting. The removal procedure began with 5 mL of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) followed by 1 mL of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and a final irrigation with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl solution for all groups. No additional agitation of the irrigant was performed in group 1, while agitation for 20 s between irrigants was done with F2 ProTaper rotary file in group 2, EndoActivator with tip size 25/.04 in group 3 and by an ultrasonic file 25/.02 in group 4. The total activation time was 60 s. The roots were then disassembled and captured by digital camera. The ratio of CH coated surface area to the surface area of the whole canal as well as each third of the canal was calculated. The data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA using post hoc Tukey test. Results showed that none of the four techniques could remove all CH. No significant difference was found between EndoActivator and ultrasonic techniques. However, they both removed significantly more CH than ProTaper and needle irrigation (P=0.0001). In conclusion, the sonic and ultrasonic agitation techniques were more effective in removing intracanal medicaments than the ProTaper rotary file and needle irrigation in all thirds of the canal.

Keywords

calcium hydroxide removal / irrigation / ProTaper / EndoActivator / ultrasonic

References

[1] WeineF.S.. . Endodontic therapy, 20046th eds.Elsevier, Mosby, 226-228

[2] FavaL.R., SaundersW.P.. Calcium hydroxide pastes: classification and clinical indications. Int Endod J, 1999, 32(4): 257-282

[3] LeeM., WinklerJ., HartwellG., et al.. Current trends in endodontic practice: emergency treatments and technological armamentarium. J Endod, 2009, 35(1): 35-39

[4] SjögrenU., FigdorD., SpångbergL., et al.. The antimicrobial effect of calcium hydroxide as a short-term intracanal dressing. Int Endod J, 1991, 24(3): 119-125

[5] EstrelaC., BammannL.L., SydneyG.B., et al.. Efeito antibacteriano de pastas de hidróxido de cálcio sobre bactérias aeróbias facultativas. Rev Fac Odontol Bauru, 1995, 3: 33-38

[6] HasselgrenG., OlssonB., CvekM.. Effects of calcium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite on the dissolution of necrotic porcine muscle tissue. J Endod, 1988, 14(3): 125-127

[7] KimS.K., KimY.O.. Influence of calcium hydroxide intracanal medication on apical seal. Int Endod J, 2002, 35(7): 623-628

[8] MargelosJ., EliadesG., VerdelisC., et al.. Interaction of calcium hydroxide with zinc oxide-eugenol type sealers: apotential clinical problem. J Endod, 1997, 23(1): 43-48

[9] CaltS., SerperA.. Dentinal tubule penetration of root canal sealers after root canal dressing with CaOH. J Endod, 1999, 25(6): 431-433

[10] BalvediR.P.A., VersianiM.A., MannaF.F., et al.. A comparison of two techniques for the removal of calcium hydroxide from root canals. Int Endod J, 2010, 43(9): 763-768

[11] Van der SluisL.W., WuM.K., WesselinkP.R.. The evaluation of removal of calcium hydroxide paste from an artificial standardized groove in the apical root canal using different irrigation methodologies. Int Endod J, 2007, 40(1): 52-57

[12] KeneeD.M., AllemangJ.D., JohnsonJ.D., et al.. A quantitative assessment of efficacy of various calcium hydroxide removal techniques. J Endod, 2006, 32(6): 563-565

[13] RuddleC.J.. Endodontic disinfection: tsunami irrigation. Endod Practice, 2008, 11: 7-15

[14] WisemanA., Cox TimothyC., ParanjpeA., et al.. Efficacy of sonic and ultrasonic activation for removal of calcium hydroxide from mesial canals of mandibular molars: a microtomographic study. J Endod, 2011, 37(2): 235-238

[15] NaamanA., KaloustianH., OunsiH.F., et al.. A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of root canal wall cleanliness after calcium hydroxide removal using three irrigation regimens. J Contemp Dent Pract, 2007, 8: 11-18

[16] Van der SluisL.W., WuM.K., WesselinkP.. Comparison of 2 flushing methods used during passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal. Quintessence Int, 2009, 40(10): 875-879

[17] ZidanO., Al-KhatibZ., Gomez-MarinO.. Obturation of root canals using the single cone gutta-percha technique and dentinal bonding agents. Int Endod J, 1987, 20(3): 128-132

[18] NandiniS., VelmuruganN., KandaswamyD.. Removal efficiency of calcium hydroxide intracanal medicament with two calcium chelators: volumetric analysis using spiral CT, an in vitro study. J Endod, 2006, 32(11): 1097-1101

[19] De GregorioC., EstevezR., CisnerosR., et al.. Effect of EDTA, sonic, and ultrasonic activation on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into simulated lateral canals: an in vitro study. J Endod, 2009, 35(6): 891-895

[20] TaşdemirT., CelikD., ErK., et al.. Efficacy of several techniques for the removal of calcium hydroxide medicament from root canals. Int Endod J, 2011, 44: 505-509

[21] KlynS.L., KirkpatrickT.C., RutledgeR.E.. In vitro comparisons of debris removal of the EndoActivatorTM system, the F fileTM, ultrasonic irrigation, and NaOCl irrigation alone after hand-rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars. J Endod, 2010, 36(8): 1367-1371

[22] TownsendC., MakiJ.. An in vitro comparison of new irrigation and agitation techniques to ultrasonic agitation in removing bacteria from a simulated root canal. J Endod, 2009, 35(7): 1040-1043

[23] JiangL.M., VerhaagenB., VersluisM., et al.. Evaluation of a sonic device designed to activate irrigant in the root canal. J Endod, 2010, 36(1): 143-146

[24] LambrianidisT., MargelosJ., BeltesP.. Removal efficiency of calcium hydroxide dressing from the root canal. J Endod, 1999, 25(2): 85-88

[25] StamosD., SadeghiE., HaaschG., et al.. An in vitro comparison study to quantitate the debridement ability of hand, sonic, and ultrasonic instrumentation. J Endod, 1987, 13(9): 434-440

[26] NielsenB.A., Craig BaumgartnerJ.. Comparison of the EndoVac System to needle irrigation of root canals. J Endod, 2007, 33(5): 611-615