Cameron Townsend1, James Maki. 1. Department of Graduate Endodontics, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53233, USA. cameron.townsend@mu.edu
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This in vitro study compared 3 agitation and 2 irrigation devices to ultrasonic agitation at mechanically removing bacteria from a plastic simulated canal, instrumented to 35/.06. METHODS: The plastic blocks were divided into seven groups. The control (C) group with brain-heart infusion (BHI) broth (sterile) received only needle irrigation. The remaining groups were incubated with BHI inoculated with Enterococcus faecalis. Irrigation and agitation techniques were ultrasonic, needle irrigation, EndoVac irrigation (Smart Endodontics; Discus Dental, Culver City, CA), EndoActivator (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK), F-File (Plastic Endo, Lincolnshire, IL), and sonic. Sterile water was the irrigant in all treatments. Remaining bacteria were stained with 0.1% crystal violet. The crystal violet was extracted using a detergent and measured spectrophotometrically. RESULTS: The results of this study show that ultrasonic agitation was not significantly different (p > 0.05, Tukey test) from the control. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05, Tukey test) between the ultrasonic agitation and the use of EndoActivator, F-File, and sonic agitation. Ultrasonic agitation was significantly more effective at removing bacteria than needle irrigation and EndoVac irrigation (p < 0.05, Tukey test). CONCLUSION: In a plastic simulated canal, ultrasonic agitation was significantly more effective than needle irrigation and EndoVac irrigation at removing intracanal bacteria. Ultrasonic, EndoActivator, F-File, and sonic agitation are similar in their ability to remove bacteria in a plastic simulated canal.
INTRODUCTION: This in vitro study compared 3 agitation and 2 irrigation devices to ultrasonic agitation at mechanically removing bacteria from a plastic simulated canal, instrumented to 35/.06. METHODS: The plastic blocks were divided into seven groups. The control (C) group with brain-heart infusion (BHI) broth (sterile) received only needle irrigation. The remaining groups were incubated with BHI inoculated with Enterococcus faecalis. Irrigation and agitation techniques were ultrasonic, needle irrigation, EndoVac irrigation (Smart Endodontics; Discus Dental, Culver City, CA), EndoActivator (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK), F-File (Plastic Endo, Lincolnshire, IL), and sonic. Sterile water was the irrigant in all treatments. Remaining bacteria were stained with 0.1% crystal violet. The crystal violet was extracted using a detergent and measured spectrophotometrically. RESULTS: The results of this study show that ultrasonic agitation was not significantly different (p > 0.05, Tukey test) from the control. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05, Tukey test) between the ultrasonic agitation and the use of EndoActivator, F-File, and sonic agitation. Ultrasonic agitation was significantly more effective at removing bacteria than needle irrigation and EndoVac irrigation (p < 0.05, Tukey test). CONCLUSION: In a plastic simulated canal, ultrasonic agitation was significantly more effective than needle irrigation and EndoVac irrigation at removing intracanal bacteria. Ultrasonic, EndoActivator, F-File, and sonic agitation are similar in their ability to remove bacteria in a plastic simulated canal.
Authors: Franklin R Tay; Li-Sha Gu; G John Schoeffel; Courtney Wimmer; Lisiane Susin; Kai Zhang; Senthil N Arun; Jongryul Kim; Stephen W Looney; David H Pashley Journal: J Endod Date: 2010-02-06 Impact factor: 4.171