Effects of different irrigation activation methods on root canal treatment of primary teeth

There is currently a lack of research on the application of newly developed irrigation techniques in root canal treatment of primary teeth. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of various irrigation activation techniques on two key parameters: apical debris extrusion (ADE) and dentinal tubule penetration depth (DTPD) of the root canal filling material. A total of 96 primary mandibular second molars were randomly divided into 4 groups: Group 1—Conventional Needle Irrigation (CNI), Group 2—XP-Endo Finisher (XPF), Group 3—EndoActivator (EA), and Group 4—Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI). In all groups, the One Reci single-file system was used for root canal preparation. For ADE measurement, each group was rinsed with distilled water. For DTPD assessment, sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) was applied. ADE quantification was performed by collecting debris in pre-weighed Eppendorf tubes. A combination of fluorescent dye and root canal filling material (DiaPex Plus) was used for root canal filling. In order to examine DTPD, horizontal cross-sections of the coronal and apical regions of the teeth were taken with a thickness of 1 mm. The maximum and mean DTPD was examined by confocal laser scanning microscopy. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis, One-way ANOVA, and Mann-Whitney U tests (p = 0.05). As a result, PUI had the highest mean ADE and CNI had the lowest mean ADE, while CNI had the highest mean DTPD in both the coronal and apical regions, whereas PUI had the lowest mean DTPD in the coronal region, and EA had the lowest mean DTPD in the apical region. There were no statistically significant differences in DTPD and ADE among the four groups. Comparing intragroup maximum DTPD across all groups, it was significantly higher in the coronal region than in the apical region (p < 0.05). ADE and DTPD of root canal filling materials in primary teeth did not differ significantly among CNI, XPF, EA and PUI irrigation activation techniques.

Root canal treatment; Irrigation; Activation; Primary tooth

[1] Fuks AB. Pulp therapy for the primary and young permanent dentitions. Dental Clinics of North America. 2000; 44: 571–596.

[2] Gümüş H, Delikan E. The effect of sonic activation of irrigant on postoperative pain after root canal treatment in primary molar teeth: a randomized, clinical study. Clinical Oral Investigation. 2021; 25: 363–370.

[3] Hachem CE, Nehme W, Kaloustian MK, Ghosn N, Daou M, Karam M, et al. The effectiveness of different irrigation techniques on debris and smear layer removal in primary mandibular second molars: an in vitro study. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2022; 23: 1173–1179.

[4] Kaplan F, Erdemir A. Evaluating the effect of different irrigation activation techniques on the dentin tubules penetration of two different root canal sealers by laser scanning confocal microscopy. Microscopy Research and Technique. 2023; 86: 791–802.

[5] Zand V, Salem Milani A, Yavari HR, Majidi AR. The effects of different agitation techniques of canal irrigant on tubular penetration of a bioceramic sealer. Iranian Endodontic Journal. 2019; 14: 289–295.

[6] Karatas E, Ozsu D, Arslan H, Erdogan AS. Comparison of the effect of nonactivated self-adjusting file system, Vibringe, EndoVac, ultrasonic and needle irrigation on apical extrusion of debris. International Endodontic Journal. 2015; 48: 317–322.

[7] Gungor OE, Kustarci A. Evaluation of apically extruded debris using two niti systems associated with two irrigation techniques in primary teeth. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2016; 40: 490–495.

[8] Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J, Choi KK, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. Journal of Endodontics. 2009; 35: 791–804.

[9] Akcay M, Arslan H, Mese M, Durmus N, Capar ID. Effect of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming, passive ultrasonic, and sonic irrigation techniques on dentinal tubule penetration of irrigation solution: a confocal microscopic study. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2017; 21: 2205–2212.

[10] Machado R, Cruz ATG, de Araujo BMDM, Klemz AA, Klug HP, da Silva Neto UX. Tubular dentin sealer penetration after different final irrigation protocols: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Microscopy Research and Technique. 2018; 81: 649–654.

[11] Hizarci U, Koçak S, Sağlam BC, Koçak MM. Effect of different irrigation activation techniques on the amount of apical debris extrusion. Tanta Dental Journal. 2019; 16: 29–32.

[12] El Hachem C, Chedid JCA, Nehme W, Kaloustian MK, Ghosn N, Rabineau M, et al. The contribution of various in vitro methodologies to comprehending the filling ability of root canal pastes in primary teeth. Bioengineering. 2023; 10: 818.

[13] Ozturk G, Aydinbelge M, Gumus H. Comparison of various root canal filling materials and obturation techniques for primary teeth using microcomputed tomography. Journal of Advanced Oral Research. 2022; 13: 53–61.

[14] Zan R, Topcuoglu H, Hubbezoglu I, Gorler O, Altunbas D, Ayhan M. Effect of different irrigation activation methods on non-infected dentinal tubule penetration of medicaments: a CLSM study. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice. 2022; 25: 895–902.

[15] Tadano JPG, Bueno CEDS, Silveira CFM, Yamanaka TB, Piai GG, Duarte MAH, et al. Effect of different activation methods on the intratubular penetration of CaOH2 paste: ex-vivo analysis by confocal laser scanning microscopy. Australian Endodontic Journal. 2023; 49: 18–26.

[16] Aktemur Türker S, Kaşıkçı S. The effect of XP-endo Finisher and XP-endo Finisher R supplementary files on apical debris extrusion during retreatment. Turkish Endodontic Journal. 2021; 6: 14–18.

[17] Keles A, Askerbeyli Ors S, Purali N, Kucukkaya Eren S. Effect of different sealer activation techniques on dentinal tubule penetration. To be published in Australian Endodontic Journal. 2023. [Preprint].

[18] de Almeida Barbosa M, de Oliveira KV, dos Santos VR, da Silva WJ, Tomazinho FSF, Baratto-Filho F, et al. Effect of vehicle and agitation methods on the penetration of calcium hydroxide paste in the dentinal tubules. Journal of Endodontics. 2020; 46: 980–986.

[19] Coşkun Başoğlu E, Koçak S, Özdemir O, Koçak MM, Sağlam BC. Efficacy of various activation techniques on tubule penetration of resin-based and bioceramic root canal sealers: an in vitro confocal microscopy study. Australian Endodontic Journal. 2023; 49: 381–389.

[20] Ateş AA, Arıcan B, Çiftçioğlu E, Küçükay ES. Influence of different irrigation regimens on the dentinal tubule penetration of a bioceramic-based root canal sealer: a confocal analysis study. Lasers in Medical Science. 2021; 36: 1771–1777.

[21] Koruk D, Basmacı F, Kırmızı D, Aksoy U. The impact of laser-activated and conventional irrigation techniques on sealer penetration into dentinal tubules. Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine, and Laser Surgery. 2022; 40: 565–572.

[22] Ada K, Shetty S, Jayalakshmi K, Nadig P, Manje Gowda P, Selvan A. Influence of different irrigant activation methods on apical debris extrusion and bacterial elimination from infected root canals. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2023; 26: 31–35.

[23] Xavier F, Nevares G, Romeiro MK, Gonçalves K, Gominho L, Albuquerque D. Apical extrusion of debris from root canals using reciprocating files associated with two irrigation systems. International Endodontic Journal. 2015; 48: 661–665.

[24] Buldur B, Kapdan A. The effect of four irrigation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris in pulpectomy of primary teeth. Yeditepe Dental Journal. 2018; 14: 13–18.

[25] Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology. 1971; 32: 271–275.

[26] Kramer W, Ireland R. Measurements of the primary teeth. Journal of Dentistry for Children. 1959; 26: 252–261.

[27] Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and canal master techniques. Journal of Endodontics. 1991; 17: 275–279.

[28] Almeida LHS, Krüger MM, Pilownic KJ, Costa VPP, Romano AR, Pappen FG. Root canal filling techniques for primary molars: an in vitro evaluation. Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia. 2019; 33: 14–20.

[29] Kaşıkçı S, Türker SA, Güven B. Effect of different retreatment files using different kinematics on the release of inflammatory mediators in root canal retreatment of single-rooted teeth: a randomized clinical trial. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2023; 27: 3189–3196.

[30] Trevino EG, Patwardhan AN, Henry MA, Perry G, Dybdal-Hargreaves N, Hargreaves KM, et al. Effect of irrigants on the survival of human stem cells of the apical papilla in a platelet-rich plasma scaffold in human root tips. Journal of Endodontics. 2011; 37: 1109–1115.

[31] Hamid HR, Gluskin AH, Peters OA, Peters CI. Rotary versus reciprocation root canal preparation: initial clinical quality assessment in a novice clinician cohort. Journal of Endodontics. 2018; 44: 1257–1262.

[32] Dhillon J, Ghosh S, Mathur V. Root canal morphology of primary molars—a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) study. Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2022; 33: 14–17.

[33] Özdemir O, Koçak S, Hazar E, Sağlam BC, Coşkun E, Koçak MM. Dentinal tubule penetration of gutta-percha with syringe-mix resin sealer using different obturation techniques: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Australian Endodontic Journal. 2022; 48: 258–265.

[34] Rezende GC, Massunari L, Queiroz IO, Gomes Filho JE, Jacinto RC, Lodi CS, et al. Antimicrobial action of calcium hydroxide-based endodontic sealers after setting, against E. faecalis biofilm. Brazilian Oral Research. 2016; 30: e38.

[35] Mortazavi M, Mesbahi M. Comparison of zinc oxide and eugenol, and Vitapex for root canal treatment of necrotic primary teeth. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2004; 14: 417–424.

[36] Deniz Sungur D, Aksel H, Purali N. Effect of a low surface tension vehicle on the dentinal tubule penetration of calcium hydroxide and triple antibiotic paste. Journal of Endodontics. 2017; 43: 452–455.

[37] Dias-Junior LCL, Castro RF, Fernandes AD, Guerreiro MYR, Silva EJNL, Brandão JMDS. Final endodontic irrigation with 70% ethanol enhanced calcium hydroxide removal from the apical third. Journal of Endodontics. 2021; 47: 105–111.

[38] Demir E, Kamalı SG, Türkaydın D. Effect of different obturation techniques on sealer penetration into dentinal tubules after final irrigation with XP-Endo finisher file. Odovtos International Journal of Dental Sciences. 2023; 25: 30–39.

[39] Botelho BA, Oliveira KV, Antunes RG, Mattos NH, Perin CP, Gabardo MC, et al. Intratubular sealer penetration: scanning electron microscopy associated with cathodoluminescence analysis. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2022; 23: 383–387.

[40] Faria G, Viola KS, Coaguila‐Llerena H, Oliveira LRA, Leonardo RT, Aranda-García AJ, et al. Penetration of sodium hypochlorite into root canal dentine: effect of surfactants, gel form and passive ultrasonic irrigation. International Endodontic Journal. 2019; 52: 385–392.

[41] Mjör IA, Smith MR, Ferrari M, Mannocci F. The structure of dentine in the apical region of human teeth. International Endodontic Journal. 2001; 34: 346–353.

[42] Keskin C, Sarıyılmaz E. Apically extruded debris and irrigants during root canal filling material removal using Reciproc Blue, WaveOne Gold, R-Endo and ProTaper Next systems. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects. 2018; 12: 272–276.