Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of EndoVac and Conventional Irrigating Systems in Primary Molars – An in Vitro Study

Objective: The present study was undertaken to evaluate and compare the apical extrusion of irrigant and depth of irrigant penetration into the dentinal tubules using the EndoVac irrigating system and the manual irrigation system in primary molar teeth. Study design: Twenty five extracted primary molars satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria were divided into two groups of 29 roots in each group with an equal distribution of apical foramen area. The teeth were mounted in pre-weighed glass bottles and the canals were irrigated with both the irrigating systems using 5.25% sodium hypochlorite solution mixed with acid fuchsin which enables the irrigating solution to penetrate efficiently into the dentinal tubules. The amount of irrigant extruded was recorded. The roots were sectioned at 2mm, 4mm and 6mm from the apex and examine the depth of irrigant penetration into the dentinal tubules under a stereomicroscope. Results: Apical extrusion of the irrigant was significantly less with the EndoVac system (1.18±1.04gms) when compared to manual irrigation system (2.3±1.55gms) (P<0.05). EndoVac irrigation system showed greater depth of irrigant penetration into the dentinal tubules (49.90±17.52mm, 32.17±12.20mm and 15.70±8.91mm) compared to the manual irrigation system (30.48±16.27mm, 14.74±9.67mm and 5.59±7.09mm) at 6mm, 4mm and 2mm respectively (P<0.05). Results showed that the depth of irrigant penetration into the dentinal tubules with both the irrigating systems was found to be significantly greater in the six mm sections compared to the four mm and two mm sections (P<0.05). Conclusion: The EndoVac irrigation system showed significantly greater efficacy compared to the manual irrigation system in primary molars with less amount of irrigant extrusion and better depth of irrigant penetration into the dentinal tubules.

EndoVac Apical extrusion, irrigating syringe, irrigant penetration.

1. Goerig A.C., Camp J.H. Root canal treatment in primary teeth: a review. Pediatr Dent 5(1): 33-7, 1983.

2. Desai P., Himel V. Comparative safety of various intracanal irrigation systems. J Endod 35(4): 545-9, 2009.

3. Gu L.S., Kim J.R., Ling J., Choi K.K, Pashley D.H., Tay F.R. Review of contemporary irrigation agitation techniques and devices. J Endod 35(6): 791- 04, 2009.

4. Nielsen B.A., Craig Baumgartner J. Comparison of the EndoVac system to needle irrigation of root canals. J Endod 33(5): 611-5, 2007.

5. Miller T.A., Baumgartner J.C. Comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of irrigation using the EndoVac to endodontic needle delivery. J Endod 36(3): 509-11, 2010.

6. Susin L., Liu Y., Yoon J.C., Parente J.M., Loushine R.J., Ricucci D. Canal and Isthmus debridement efficacies of two different irrigant agitation techniques in a closed system. Int Endod J 43: 1077-90, 2010.

7. Myers G.L., Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and canal master techniques. J Endod 17(6): 275-9, 1991.

8. Hauser V., Braun A., Frentzen M. Penetration depth of a dye marker into dentine using a novel hydrodynamic system (RinsEndo®). Int Endod J 40: 644-52, 2007.

9. Al-Omari M.A.O., Dummer P.M.H. Canal blockage and debris extrusion with eight preparation techniques. J Endod 21: 154-8, 1955.

10. Martin H., Cunningham W.T. The effect of endosonic and hand manipu-lation on the amount of root canal material extruded. Oral Surg 53: 611-3, 1982.

11. Mitchell R.P., Yang S.E., Baumgartner J.C. Comparison of apical extru-sion of NaOCl using the EndoVac or needle irrigation of root canals. J Endod 36(2): 338-41, 2010.

12. Mitchell R.P., Baumgartner J.C., Sedgley C.M. Apical extrusion of Sodium hypochlorite using different root canal irrigation systems. J Endod 37(12): 1677-81, 2011.

13. Williams C.E., Reid JS, Sharkey SW, Saunders WP. In vitro measurement of apically extruded irrigant in primary molars. Int Endod J 28: 221-5, 1995.

14. Fukomoto Y., Kikuchi I., Yoshioka T., Kobayashi C., Suda H. An ex vivo evaluation of a new root canal irrigation technique with intracanal aspira-tion. Int Endod J 39: 93-9, 2006.

15. Peters L.B., Wesselink P.R., Buijs J.F., van Winkelhoff AJ. Viable bacteria in root dentinal tubules of teeth with apical periodontitis. J Endod 27(2): 76- 81, 2001.

16. Hockett J.L., Dommisch J.K., Johnson J.D., Cohenca N. Antimicrobial efficacy of two irrigation techniques in tapered and non-tapered canal preparations: An in vitro study. J Endod 34(11): 1374-7, 2008.

17. Townsend C., Maki J. An in vitro comparison of new irrigation and agitation techniques to ultrasonic agitation in removing bacteria from a simulated root canal. J Endod 35(7): 1040-3, 2009.

18. Siu C., Baumgartner J.C. Comparison of the debridement efficacy of the EndoVac irrigation system and conventional needle root canal irrigation in vivo. J Endod 36(11): 1782-5, 2010.

19. Munoz H.R., Camacho-Cuadra K. In vivo efficacy of three different endodontic irrigation systems for irrigant delivery to working length of mesial canals of mandibular molars. J Endod 38(4): 445-8, 2012.

20. Saini M., Kumari M., Taneja S. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of three different irrigation devices in removal of debris from root canal at two different levels: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 16(6): 509-13, 2013.

21. Schoeffel G.J. The EndoVac method of endodontic irrigation: safety first. Dent Today 26(10): 92-4. 96, 2007.

22. Schoeffel G.J. The EndoVac method of endodontic irrigation, part 2-effi-cacy. Dent Today 27(1): 86-7. 82, 84, 2008.