INTRODUCTION: This in vitro study compared debridement efficacies of a sonic irrigation technique (Vibringe; Cavex Holland BV, Haarlem, The Netherlands) with side-vented needle irrigation (SNI) in the mesiobuccal root of maxillary first molars. METHODS:Twenty roots with narrow isthmuses (≤ 1/4 canal diameter) were selected using micro-computed tomography scanning. Collagen solution was injected into canals/isthmuses and reconstituted with NH(4)OH to simulate canal debris. Each root was sealed apically and embedded in polyvinyl siloxane simulating a closed-canal system. Canals were instrumented to size 40/.04 taper 1 mm short of the anatomic apex. The final irrigation was performed with the Vibringe or SNI. Roots were demineralized, sectioned at 6 levels (1.2-3.2 mm) from the anatomic apex, and stained using Masson trichrome stain. The areas occupied by canals and isthmus and the debris-containing areas were statistically analyzed with repeated-measures analyses using "irrigation technique" as the between factor and "canal level" as the within factor (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Canals had significantly more debris at 1.2 and 1.6 mm (P < .001), but there was no overall difference between the 2 techniques (P = .561). Significant differences were found between the Vibringe and SNI at 2.4, 2.8, and 3.2 mm (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the remaining debris in the isthmus for SNI at all (P > .05). Considerably more debris remained at 1.2 and 2.0 mm for the Vibringe (P < .05). A significant difference was observed between the canal and the isthmus (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference between the Vibringe and SNI in their overall debridement efficacy in apical one third of the mesiobuccal root of maxillary first molars. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: This in vitro study compared debridement efficacies of a sonic irrigation technique (Vibringe; Cavex Holland BV, Haarlem, The Netherlands) with side-vented needle irrigation (SNI) in the mesiobuccal root of maxillary first molars. METHODS: Twenty roots with narrow isthmuses (≤ 1/4 canal diameter) were selected using micro-computed tomography scanning. Collagen solution was injected into canals/isthmuses and reconstituted with NH(4)OH to simulate canal debris. Each root was sealed apically and embedded in polyvinyl siloxane simulating a closed-canal system. Canals were instrumented to size 40/.04 taper 1 mm short of the anatomic apex. The final irrigation was performed with the Vibringe or SNI. Roots were demineralized, sectioned at 6 levels (1.2-3.2 mm) from the anatomic apex, and stained using Masson trichrome stain. The areas occupied by canals and isthmus and the debris-containing areas were statistically analyzed with repeated-measures analyses using "irrigation technique" as the between factor and "canal level" as the within factor (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Canals had significantly more debris at 1.2 and 1.6 mm (P < .001), but there was no overall difference between the 2 techniques (P = .561). Significant differences were found between the Vibringe and SNI at 2.4, 2.8, and 3.2 mm (P < .05). There was no significant difference in the remaining debris in the isthmus for SNI at all (P > .05). Considerably more debris remained at 1.2 and 2.0 mm for the Vibringe (P < .05). A significant difference was observed between the canal and the isthmus (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference between the Vibringe and SNI in their overall debridement efficacy in apical one third of the mesiobuccal root of maxillary first molars. Published by Elsevier Inc.