OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate canal cleanliness and smear layer removal after use of the Quantec-E irrigation system and to compare the system with traditional irrigation. STUDY DESIGN:Forty anterior teeth were randomly assigned to 4 groups. Group A consisted of 15 teeth that were instrumented with .12, .10, .08, .06 and .04 tapered rotaries while simultaneously irrigated via the Quantec-E irrigation pump with 12 mL of 5.25% NaOCl, followed by 6 mL EDTA 17% in crown-down fashion, with a final flush with 4 mL 5.25% NaOCl. Group B consisted of 15 teeth that were instrumented with the same instrument sequence, and irrigated with the same volumes via traditional needle and syringe. Group C consisted of 5 teeth that were sectioned and examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) without any instrumentation and served as a negative control. Group D consisted of 5 teeth that were instrumented dry, without any irrigation, and served as a positive control. All teeth were sectioned buccolingually and examined with SEM at 700x magnification in the apical, middle, and coronal portions of the canals. Analysis of SEM images was performed by 5 independent examiners using a 4-point scoring system. RESULTS: Irrigation with the Quantec-E irrigation pump resulted in cleaner canal walls, less debris, and more complete removal of the smear layer within the coronal one third, when compared with syringe irrigation. However, no difference was observed in the middle and apical one thirds of the root canal. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the 2 irrigation systems.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate canal cleanliness and smear layer removal after use of the Quantec-E irrigation system and to compare the system with traditional irrigation. STUDY DESIGN: Forty anterior teeth were randomly assigned to 4 groups. Group A consisted of 15 teeth that were instrumented with .12, .10, .08, .06 and .04 tapered rotaries while simultaneously irrigated via the Quantec-E irrigation pump with 12 mL of 5.25% NaOCl, followed by 6 mL EDTA 17% in crown-down fashion, with a final flush with 4 mL 5.25% NaOCl. Group B consisted of 15 teeth that were instrumented with the same instrument sequence, and irrigated with the same volumes via traditional needle and syringe. Group C consisted of 5 teeth that were sectioned and examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) without any instrumentation and served as a negative control. Group D consisted of 5 teeth that were instrumented dry, without any irrigation, and served as a positive control. All teeth were sectioned buccolingually and examined with SEM at 700x magnification in the apical, middle, and coronal portions of the canals. Analysis of SEM images was performed by 5 independent examiners using a 4-point scoring system. RESULTS: Irrigation with the Quantec-E irrigation pump resulted in cleaner canal walls, less debris, and more complete removal of the smear layer within the coronal one third, when compared with syringe irrigation. However, no difference was observed in the middle and apical one thirds of the root canal. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the 2 irrigation systems.
Authors: Kavalipurapu V Teja; Sindhu Ramesh; Kaligotla A Vasundhara; K C Janani; Jerry Jose; Gopi Battineni Journal: J Taibah Univ Med Sci Date: 2021-08-19