Shalan L. A, Al-huwaizi H. F, Fatalla A. A. Apical Extrusion of Debris and Irrigants After using Different Irrigation Needles and Systems With Different Depth of Penetration (A Comparative Study). Biomed Pharmacol J 2018;11(1).

---

Manuscript received on :December 08, 2017
Manuscript accepted on :January 30, 2018
Published online on: --

---

Plagiarism Check: Yes

How to Citeclose    |   Publication History close

 Views: 

Visited 1,745 times, 1 visit(s) today

 

 PDF Downloads: 

1010

Linz A. Shalan¹, Hussain F. Al-huwaizi¹ and Abdalbseet A Fatalla²

¹Department of Conservative and Esthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad.

²Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad.

Correspondent Author E-mail: abdalbasit@codental.­uobaghdad.edu.iq

DOI : https://dx.doi.org/10.13005/bpj/1402

Abstract

This study evaluate the amount of debris and irrigants extruded apically during the use of different irrigation needle (open end & double side vented needle) attached to different device (pressurized water device  Aqua-pick 300 & syringe) with depth of penetration 2mm and 4mm from the working length. A Total number of 80 permanent single rooted teeth (premolars) with same working length were divided into two main groups, group A: penetration depth of irrigation syringe to 2mm from the working, group B: penetration depth of irrigation syringe to 4mm from the working length. Each group was subdivided into 4 subgroups (n=10) weight of extruded debris and irrigants were weighed and the data statistically analyzed by ANOVA and the Tukey test. Statistical analysis using one way ANOVA and Tukey test revealed that there was a high significant difference among the tested groups with least amount of apically extruded irrigants when the penetration length was 4mm from the working length with Aquapick device with double side vented needle. The study concluded that different irrigation needles attached to pressurized water(Aqua-pick 300 device)   with different penetration depth lead to less amount of apical extrusion of irrigants when compared to syringe with statistically non-significant differences.

Keywords

Apical Extrusion of Irrigation; Endoactivator; Pressurized Water

Introduction

Endodontic irrigants are important step to remove pulp tissue, microorganisms and their byproducts  and debris from the root canal system.¹ Apical extrusion of debris and irrigant during cleaning and shaping of the root canal is one of the serious problems effect on the treatment. Several studies have shown that dentin debris, necrotic tissue, microorganisms and irrigating solution may be forced towards the periapical tissues during root canal instrumentation and irrigation.² Apically extruded debris lead to sever inflammation reaction. Tissue reactions following instrumentation short from the apex are milder than those reactions that follow instrumentation beyond the apex. Therefore, the amount of apically extruded debris should be minimized in order to minimize postoperative reactions.³

Debris extrusion depends on several factors, including the apical anatomy , type and size of the irrigation needle,  penetration depth of the needle, and the instrumentation technique.⁴ The needle design also influences flow pattern, flow velocity and apical wall pressure, which are important parameters accounting for irrigation effectiveness and safety,⁵ for better effectiveness of the irrigation, the irrigant should make direct contact with all parts of the canal wall.¹ A flushing action, which is dependent on several factors such as the insertion depth, diameter of the needle² and the final size and taper of the prepared root canal,³ is necessary for optimal cleaning of the root canal.⁴  It is the most widely used technique because it is very easy to manipulate and affords good control of needle depth and the volume of irrigant delivered. However, its safety has been questioned because of the positive pressure used to introduce the irrigant into the canal, which could cause the solution to extrude into the periapex despite strict control of the working length (WL) and result in severe tissue damage and postoperative pain.⁶

Aquapick AQ-300 device (Aquapick Co, Ltd, Korea) available in the market as advanced oral irrigation device with 1800 pulsations per minute and maximum water pressure is 7kgf/cm.⁷

The aim of this study was to compare amount of apically extruded debris & irrigants after use opened end needle with disposable syringe, double side vented needle with disposable syringe and the same needles attached to device which supply pressurized water (Aqua-pick-300) with different depth of penetration inside canal.

Material and Method

Preparation of the Samples

80 freshly extracted single root permanent premolars were used with mature apex and single canal and apical foramen with same length, teeth with caries, root curvature, cracks were discarded the teeth were cleaned with cumine scaler to remove calculus and soft tissue debris then washed under tap water and kept in distilled water solution.

After access opening for all teeth the working length was determined by placing #10 K file with a rubber stop carefully into each canal until it was just visible in the apical foramen, this length was noted and 1mm was subtracted to give the working length of the canal and all the selected teeth had a working length 19 mm. The teeth were prepared with Protaper (Dentsply, Maillefer) hand system in crown-down approach and the instruments were used according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

The apical enlargement was done to size F3 (D0= 30)⁸ distilled water was used as irrigants, in each group 30 second irrigation⁹ with 4 ml of normal saline was used after each file with total irrigation time of 120 sec.

After canal preparation a method of Myers & Montgomery¹⁰ was followed, the teeth were forced through a precut hole in a rubber stopper, then placed on the glass shell vials. A 27- gauge needle (KDL, China) was placed through the stopper into the flask to equalize the air pressure inside and outside the vial.

In this study we used open end needle gauge 23 & double side vented needle gauge 23 with disposable syringe and open end needle gauge 23 & double side vented needle gauge attached to  (Aqua-pick 300) which produced water with 100psi pressure with 1800 pulsations per minute  on its end  and fix them by a glue to used it inside canal

Figure 1: irrigation devices   Click here to View figure

Grouping

A total 80 freshly extracted single rooted teeth (permanent premolars) were used in this study which was divided into 3 groups consisting of 10 samples for each group and as follows:

Group A: Irrigation was made to 2mm from working length.

Group A1: Irrigation was made by open end needle with syringe

Group A2: Irrigation was made by double side vented needle with syringe.

Group A3: Irrigation was made by open end needle attached to Aqua-pick300

Group A4: Irrigation was made by double side vented needle attached to Aqua-pick300.

Group B: Irrigation was made to 4mm from the working length.

Group B1: Irrigation was made by open end needle attached to syringe.

Group B2: Irrigation was made by double side vented needle attached to syringe.

Group B3: Irrigation was made by open end needle attached to Aqu-pick300.

Group B4: Irrigation was made by double side vented needle attached to Aqua-pick300.

Debris and Irrigants Weighting

After complete instrumentation and irrigation specimens were removed from the apparatus and the vial then weighed three times on a precision electronic balance (Acculab-R-LSeries LA 60, Totalcomp, Inc, Fair Lawn, NJ, USA) (max x 60 g). The weight of the irrigant was calculated as the difference between the pre and post instrumentation weights. All irrigation and weighing procedures were carried out by the same operator.

Result

The means and standard deviation values of the apical extrusion of irrigants are shown in Table 1. revealed that the aqua-pick device with double side vented needle with penetration depth of 4mm from full working length had lowest amount of apically extruded irrigants compared with the other experimental groups (P < 0.001) while aqua-pick with double side vented needle inserted 2mm from the full working length had the highest amount of apically extruded irrigants among the experimental groups. Also there was a statistically high significant difference between the groups according to the one-way Anova & Tukey test analysis of variance (P < 0.001) as shown in table 2.

Table 1: Descriptive statistic and ANOVA test for tested groups

Table 2: Tukey test was made between groups

Discussion

Factors effect apical extrusion of irrigants are canal size, curvature, apical enlargement, instrumentation, type of irrigants and irrigation device. Penetration depth of the irrigation needle inside canal affects apical extrusion of irrigants in this study 2 penetration depth inside canal was used 2mm & 4 mm shorter than the working length to provide enough place to irrigants to flow and improve cleaning efficiency and disinfection.¹¹ distilled water was used to ensure that apical extrusion of irrigants was due to irrigation device not to the type of irrigants. Apical diameter was 0.3mm to provide minimal diameter for adequate irrigation for the apical third.⁸ Irrigation with syringe was done with gentle pressure to prevent apical extrusion of irrigants periapically¹³

According to the result of this study the highest amount of apically extruded irrigants was with Aqua-pick with open end needle this finding was in agreement with previous studies^8,11 this may be related to several factors: the open end needle produce more apical pressure and its design enable the apical extrusion of irrigants¹² depth of insertion of the needle to 2mm away from the apex increased the risk of apical extrusion of irrigants⁸ also the irrigation device play an important role in pressurized water device water delivered with pressure about 7kgf/cm which increase the apical extrusion of irrigants.

Irrigation with Aqua-pick and double side vented needle with penetration depth of 4mm from the apex produced less amount of apical extrusion of irrigants this in agree with previous studies^4,13,14 side-vented is closed apically thus create more pressure on the walls of the root canal and improve the hydrodynamic activation of an irrigant and reduce the chance of apical extrusion which allows the irrigant to reflux and causes more debris to be displaced coronally, while avoiding the inadvertent expression of the irrigant into periapical tissues.

According to the result of this study the depth of insertion 4mm from the working length produced less apically extruded irrigants when compared to 2mm from the working length. The further the needle is positioned away from the apex, the less apical pressure is developed this finding was in agreement with previous study.¹⁴

Within the limitation of this study there was less amount of apically extruded debris and irrigants when both tested needles attached to device with pressurized water in both tested depth of penetration with statistically  non-significant differences (p> 0.05) when the needles attached to syringe.

Conclusion

Within the limitation of this study the use of open end needle and double side vented needle with pressurized water device produce less amount of apically extruded debris and irrigants when compared with the same needles attached to syringe and could be used as new intra-canal irrigation system further studies must be done about it.

References

1. Saleh I, et al. Survival of Enterococcus faecalis in infected dentinal tubules after root canal filling with different root canal sealers in vitro. International Endodontic Journal. 2004;37(3):193-198.
   CrossRef
2. Tanalp J, et al. Quantitative evaluation of the amount of apically extruded debris using 3 different rotary instrumentation systems. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2006;101(2):250-257.
   CrossRef
3. Hinrichs R.E, Walker W.A and Schindler W.G.  A comparison of amounts of apically extruded debris using handpiece-driven nickel-titanium instrument systems. Journal of endodontics. 1998;24(2):102-106.
   CrossRef
4. Altundasar E, et al. Debris and irrigant extrusion potential of 2 rotary systems and irrigation needles. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2011;112(4):e31-e35.
   CrossRef
5. Shen Y, et al. Three-dimensional numeric simulation of root canal irrigant flow with different irrigation needles. Journal of Endodontics. 2010;36(5):884-889.
   CrossRef
6. Kokate S.R. Single reciprocating file system WaveOne-A clinical review. Clinical Dentistry. 2013;7(5):0974-3979.
7. Park S.Y, et al. Decontamination methods using a dental water jet and dental floss for microthreaded implant fixtures in regenerative periimplantitis treatment. Implant dentistry. 2015;24(3):307-316.
   CrossRef
8. Khademi  A, Yazdizadeh M and Feizianfard M.  Determination of the minimum instrumentation size for penetration of irrigants to the apical third of root canal systems. Journal of endodontics. 2006;32(5):417-420.
   CrossRef
9. Iqbal M, et al. Comparison of apical transportation between ProFile™ and ProTaper™ NiTi rotary instruments. International endodontic journal. 2004;37(6):359-364.
   CrossRef
10. Myers G.L and  Montgomery S.  A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. Journal of endodontics. 1991;17(6):275-279.
    CrossRef
11. Silva P.B, et al.  Apical Extrusion of Debris and Irrigants Using Different Irrigation Needles. Brazilian dental journal. 2016;27(2):192-195.
    CrossRef
12. Boutsioukis C, et al. The effect of needle-insertion depth on the irrigant flow in the root canal: evaluation using an unsteady computational fluid dynamics model. Journal of Endodontics. 2010;36(10):1664-1668.
    CrossRef
13. Psimma Z, et al. Effect of needle insertion depth and root canal curvature on irrigant extrusion ex vivo. Journal of endodontics. 2013;39(4):521-524.
    CrossRef
14. Yost R.A, et al.  Evaluation of 4 different irrigating systems for apical extrusion of sodium hypochlorite. Journal of endodontics. 2015;41(9):  1530-1534.
    CrossRef