Browsing by Subject "root canal therapy"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An in-vitro SEM study comparing the debridement efficacy of the EndoVac® system versus the Canal CleanMax® following hand-rotary istrumentation
    (2010) Ricketts, Benjamin P. (Benjamin Paul), 1980-; Vail, Mychel; Legan, Joseph J.; Moore, B. Keith; Spolnik, Kenneth Jacob, 1950-; Zunt, Susan L., 1951-
    This in-vitro, prospective, randomized study microscopically compared the debridement efficacy of negative pressure irrigation with the EndoVac (Discus Dental, Culver City, CA) versus the Canal CleanMax (Maximum Dental, Inc., Secaucus, NJ). Sixty extracted human canines were instrumented using a combination of hand-instrumentation with Lexicon K-type files and rotary instrumentation with ProTaper files. All canals were irrigated with 6.0-percent sodium hypochlorite and 17- percent ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). However, the irrigation/aspiration techniques differed among three groups of 20 randomly selected teeth. Group one (control) was irrigated with only a 12-ml Monoject syringe via 30-gauge side-vented, closed-end needle. Group two was irrigated with the EndoVac system. Group three was irrigated similar to group one, but with the adjunct of the Canal CleanMax system. All teeth were sectioned longitudinally, and the more intact sections were divided into coronal, middle, and apical thirds. Each portion of the canal was photographed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The photographs were scored by two independent examiners according to relative amount of debris and/or smear layer present, as well as relative number of patent dentinal tubules. These scores were statistically analyzed using a Krustal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests to determine differences between groups. The coronal aspect of root canal walls irrigated with the EndoVac system exhibited significantly less debris and/or smear layer present when compared to the coronal aspect of root canals irrigated with only a standard 12-ml Monoject syringe equipped with 30-gauge ProRinse side-vented, closed-end needle (control). There were no other significant differences in scores between any groups at any location. For all locations combined, the EndoVac system produced significantly cleaner root canal walls as compared to the control. No significant differences were seen between the Canal CleanMax and Control or Canal CleanMax and EndoVac. This study suggested negative pressure irrigation delivery with the EndoVac system during and after hand-rotary instrumentation is more effective in removal of debris and smear layer from the coronal third and combined thirds of root canal walls compared to irrigation with a standard 12-ml Monoject syringe equipped with 30-gauge ProRinse side-vented, closed-end needle.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Use of electromagnetic stimulation on an Enterococcus faecalis biofilm in root canal treated teeth in vitro
    (2019) Kindler, Justin K.; Spolnik, Kenneth J.; Duarte, Simone; Gregory, Richard L.; Ehrlich, Ygal; Bringas, Josef S.
    Introduction: Nonsurgical root canal therapy procedures aim to reduce the total microbial load within an infected root canal system through chemomechanical debridement of the root canal system via instrumentation in conjunction with an antibacterial irrigating solution. The most commonly used irrigant is sodium hypochlorite, often at concentrations toxic to human cells. Electromagnetic wave irradiation is a novel method of disinfection that has been shown to be bactericidal against planktonic microorganisms in solution, but its efficacy against an established biofilm is unknown. Pilot studies have demonstrated a synergistic killing effect with sodium hypochlorite through a process termed electromagnetic stimulation (EMS). If confirmed, lower concentrations of the current gold standard of 6.0-percent sodium hypochlorite could be used to irrigate infected root canals during endodontic treatment, resulting in less toxicity to human cells. There are also regenerative implications as EMS could be used to disinfect the root canals of immature teeth using 1.5-percent sodium hypochlorite, as recommended by the American Association of Endodontists. Objectives: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the anti-biofilm effect of EMS against an established biofilm of Enterococcus faecalis. Materials and Methods: Single rooted teeth were cut to a standardized length (12 mm) and instrumented with a 45.05 Wave One Gold reciprocating file. Specimens were sterilized and inoculated with E. faecalis, which grew for two weeks to form an established biofilm. There were five treatment groups: 1) 6.0-percent sodium hypochlorite; 2) 1.5-percent sodium hypochlorite; 3) 1.5-percent sodium hypochlorite with EMS; 4) 0.9-percent saline with EMS and 5) 0.9-percent saline. Samples were collected, plated, and incubated for two days. The number of CFUs/mL was determined and converted to log10. The effect of treatment group on bacterial counts was made using Wilcoxon Rank Sums Test. One sample per group was scored and split for confocal imaging. Null Hypothesis: Teeth treated with EMS in combination with 1.5-percent sodium hypochlorite or 0.9-percent saline will not demonstrate a significant anti-biofilm effect in comparison to those treated with 6.0-percent sodium hypochlorite alone. Results: 0.9-percent saline and 0.9-percent saline with EMS were significantly higher than 6.0-percent NaOCl, 1.5-percent NaOCl, and 1.5-percent NaOCl with EMS. 0.9-percent saline was significantly higher than 0.9-percent saline with EMS. The three groups that included treatment with NaOCl were not significantly different from each other. Confocal imaging confirmed the CFU findings. Conclusion: Because there was no growth in any of the NaOCl groups, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. However, there was an antibiofilm effect when comparing the two saline groups, demonstrating that EMS has an antibiofilm effect. Future studies should focus on determining what concentration of NaOCl is most effective in combination with EMS.