IntroductionRemoval of the bacterial biofilm from an infected canal surface is one of the most important roles of root canal irrigation (Gulabivala et al. ). It has been accepted that irrigation using a syringe and needle can only deliver the irrigant to approximately 1 to 1.5 mm beyond the needle opening (Boutsioukis et al. ). Both manual and automated agitation of the irrigant aids its apical penetration beyond the stagnation plane (Bronnec et al. , Gulabivala et al. ) and removal of surface‐adherent layers, be they smear layer (Caron et al. ), debris (Jiang et al. ) or stained collagen (Huang et al. , McGill et al. ), and the latter, closely representing microbial biofilms (Abbott et al. , Alarab Mohmmed et al. ).Manual dynamic agitation of irrigant can be achieved using a file (Bronnec et al. ) or a tapered gutta‐percha cone (Huang et al. ) but may be considered laborious and less effective than ultrasonic or sonic devices (Jiang et al. ). Endovac™ is another device aimed at active irrigation and shows promising debris removal (Nielsen & Baumgartner , Siu & Baumgartner ) although less so for additional antibacterial efficacy (Townsend & Maki , Miller & Baumgartner ). Ultrasonic irrigant agitation is effective (Lee et al. , Van der Sluis et al. ,
International Endodontic Journal – Wiley
Published: Jan 1, 2018
Keywords: ; ; ;
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud