Meltem KÜÇÜK, Fatma KERMEOĞLU, Atakan KALENDER

Endodontide Kullanılan Güncel İrrigasyon Solüsyonları, Sistem ve Cihazları

Kök kanal tedavisinin en önemli hedeflerinden biri enfekte kök kanallarından mikroorganizmaların ve doku artıklarının uzaklaştırılmasıdır. Kök kanal sisteminin karmaşık yapısı nedeniyle kemomekanik preparasyon işlemi tam bir kök kanal temizliği ve dezenfeksiyonu sağlamamaktadır. Çeşitli irrigasyon solüsyonları ve cihazları kullanılarak enfekte kök kanallarındaki bakteriyel popülasyon önemli ölçüde azaltılabilir ayrıca daha etkin kanal temizliği yapılabilir.Bu derlemenin amacı endodontide kullanılan irrigasyon solüsyonları, sistem ve cihazları ile ilgili güncel bilgiyi özetlemektir

Anahtar Kelimeler:

EndoVac, İrrigasyon, Smear tabakası

Contemporary Irrigation Solutions, System and Devices Used in Endodontics.

One of the most important aims of root canal treatment is the elimination of microorganisms and tissue remnants from the infected root canals. Chemomechanical preparation process does not provide a complete cleaning and disinfection of the root canal because of the complex structure of root canal system. The bacterial population of infected root canals can be significantly reduced by using various antibacterial irrigation solutions and devices, also more efficient canal cleaning can be made. The aim of this review is to summarize the available information concerning irrigation solutions, systems and devices used in endodontics

Keywords:

EndoVac, Irrigation, Smear layer,

PDF

___

1. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod 2006; 32: 389-98.
2. Peters OA, Schönenberger K, Laib A. Effects of four Ni-Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography. Int Endod J 2001; 34: 221-30.
3. Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Qian W, Gao Y. Irrigation in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am 2010; 54: 291-312.
4. Yang SE, Bae KS. Scanning electron microscopy study of the adhesion of Prevotella nigrescens to the dentin of prepared root canals. J Endod 2002; 28: 433–7.
5. George S, Kishen A, Song KP. The role of environmental changes on monospecies biofilm formation on root canal wall by Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod 2005; 31: 867–72.
6. Violich DR, Chandler NP. The smear layer in endodontics – a review. Int Endod J 2010; 43: 2- 15.
7. Basrani B, Haapasalo M. Update on endodontic irrigating solutions. Endod Topics 2012; 27: 74- 102.
8. Vineet SA, Rajesh M, Sonali K, Mukesh PA. Contemporary Overview of Endodontic Irrigants – A Review. J Dent App 2014; 1: 105-15.
9. Ercan E, Özekinci T, Atakul F, Gül K. Antibacterial activity of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite in infected root canal: in vivo study. J Endod 2004; 30: 84-7.
10.Rosenthal S, Spångberg L, Safavi K. Chlorhexidine substantivity in root canal dentin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 2004; 98: 488-92.
11. Mohammadi Z, Abbott PV. The properties and applications of chlorhexidine in endodontics. Int Endod J 2009; 42: 288-302.
12. Hülsmann M, Heckendorff M, Lennon A. Chelating agents in root canal treatment: mode of action and indications for their use. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 810-30.
13. Mancini M, Armellin E, Casaglia A, Cerroni L, Cianconi LA. A Comparative study of smear layer removal and erosion in apical intraradicular dentine with three irrigating solutions: A scanning electron microscopy evaluation. J Endod 2009; 35: 900-3.
14. Serper A, Çalt S, Dogan AL, Guc D, Ozçelik B, Kuraner T. Comparison of the cytotoxic effects and smear layer removing capacity of oxidative potential water, NaOCl and EDTA. J Oral Sci 2001; 43: 233-8.
15.Çalt S, Serper A. Time-dependent effects of EDTA on dentin structures. J Endod 2002; 28: 17- 9.
16.Bystrom A, Sundqvist G. The antibacterial action of sodium hypochlorite and EDTA in 60 cases of endodontic therapy. Int Endod J 1985; 18: 35-40
17.Bui TB, Baumgartner CJ, Mitchell CJ. Evaluation of the interaction between sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate and its effect on root dentin. J Endod 2008; 34: 181-5.
18. Grawehr M, Sener B, Waltimo T, Zehnder M. Interactions Of EthylenediamineTetraacetic Acid With Sodium Hypochlorite In Aqueous Solutions. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 411-7.
19.Rasimick BJ, Nekich M, Hladek MM, Musikant BL, Deutsch AS. Interaction between chlorhexidine digluconate and EDTA. J Endod 2008; 34: 1521-3.
20. Scelza MF, Teixeira AM, Scelza P. Decalcifying effect of EDTA-T, 10% citric acid, and 17% EDTA on root canal dentin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 2003; 95: 234-6.
21.Ballal NV, Kandian S, Mala K, Bhat KS, Acharya S. Comparison of the efficacy of maleic acid and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid in smear layer removal from instrumented human root canal: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2009; 35: 1573-6.
22.Ballal NV, Kundabala M, Bhat S, Rao N, Rao BS. A comparative in vitro evaluation of cytotoxic effects of EDTA and maleic acid: root canal irrigants. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 108: 633-8.
23. Srikumar GPV, Sekhar KS, Nischith KG. Mixture tetracycline citric acid and detergent – A root canal irrigant. A review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2013; 3: 31-5.
24. Torabinejad M, Shabahang S, Aprecio RM, Kettering JD. The antimicrobial effect of MTAD: an in vitro investigation. J Endod 2003; 29: 400-3.
25. Elakanti S, Cherukuri G, Rao VG, Chandrasekhar V, Rao SA, Tummala M. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of QMix™ 2 in 1, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans. J Conserv Dent 2015; 18: 128-31.
26. Eliot C, Hatton JF, Stewart GP, Hildebolt CF, Jane Gillespie M, Gutmann JL. The effect of the irrigant QMix on removal of canal wall smear layer: an ex vivo study. Odontology 2014; 102: 232-40.
27.Basrani B. Endodontic irrigation, chemical disinfection of the root canal system. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015: 47-160.
28. Sedgley CM, Nagel AC, Hall D, Applegate B. Influence of irrigant needle depth in removing bioluminescent bacteria inoculated into instrumented root canals using real-time imaging in vitro. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 97-104.
29. Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J, Choi KK, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod 2009; 35: 791-804.
30.Chandra V, Gandi P, Shivanna AK, Srivanas S, Himgiri S, Nischith KG. A scanning electron microscopic study to evaluate the efficacy of naviTip FX in removing the canal debris during root canal preparation: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14: 653-6.
31. Setlock J, Fayad MI, BeGole E, Bruzick M. Evaluation of canal cleanliness and smear layer removal after the use of the Quantec-E irrigation system and syringe: a comparative scanning electron microscope study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 96: 614-7.
32. Adıgüzel Ö. A literature review of self adjusting file. Int Dent Res 2011; 1: 18-25.
33. Metzger Z, Solomonov M, Kfir A. The role of mechanical instrumentation in the cleaning of root canals. Endod Topics. 2013; 29: 87-109.
34. Lin J, Shen Y, Haapasalo MA.Comparative study of biofilm removal with hand, rotary nickeltitanium and self-adjusting file instrumentation using a novel in vitro biofilm model. J Endod 2013; 39: 658-63.
35. Metzger Z, Teperovich E, Cohen R, Zary R, Paqué F, Hülsmann M. The self-adjusting file (SAF). Part 3: removal of debris and smear layerA scanning electron microscope study. J Endod 2010; 36: 697-702.
36. Kanter V, Weldon E, Nair U, Varella C, Kanter K, Anusavice K, Pileggi R. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of ultrasonic versus sonic endodontic systems on canal cleanliness and obturation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 112: 809-13.
37.Brito PR, Souza LC, Machado de Oliveira JC, Alves FR, De-Deus G, Lopes HP, Siqueira Jr JF. Comparison of the effectiveness of three irrigation techniques in reducing intracanal Enterococcus faecalis populations: an in vitro study. J Endod 2009; 35: 1422-7.
38.Rödig T, Bozkurt M, Konietschke F, Hülsmann M. Comparison of the Vibringe system with syringe and passive ultrasonic irrigation in removing debris from simulated root canal irregularities. J Endod 2010; 36: 1410–3.
39. Sabins RA, Johnson JD, Hellstein JW. A comparison of the cleaning effi cacy of short-term sonic and ultrasonic passive irrigation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod 2003; 29: 674-8.
40. Van der Sluis LW, Versluis M, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: a review of the literature. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 415-26.
41.Roy RA, Ahmad M, Crum LA. Physical mechanisms governing the hydrodynamic response of an oscillating ultrasonic file. Int Endod J 1994; 27: 197-207.
42. Paragliola R, Franco V, Fabiani C, Mazzoni A, Nato F, Tay FR Breschi L, Grandini S. Final rinse optimization: influence of different agitation protocols. J Endod 2010; 36: 282-5.
43. Spoleti P, Siragusa M, Spoleti MJ. Bacteriological evaluation of passive ultrasonic activation. J Endod 2003; 29: 12-4.
44. 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 2009; 35: 1040-3.
45. Gründling GL, Zechin JG, Jardim WM, de Oliveira SD, de Figueiredo JA. Effect of ultrasonics on Enterococcus faecalis biofilm in a bovine tooth model. J Endod 2011; 37: 1128-33.
46.Cachovan G, Schiffner U, Altenhof S, Guentsch A, Pfister W, Eick S. Comparative antibacterial efficacies of hydrodynamic and ultrasonic irrigation systems in vitro. J Endod 2013; 39: 1171-5.
47. De Gregorio C, Paranjpe A, Garcia A, Navarrete N, Estevez R, Esplugues EO. Efficacy of irrigation systems on penetration of sodium hypochlorite to working length and to simulated uninstrumented areas in oval shaped root canals. Int Endod J 2012; 45: 475-81.
48. Yoo YJ, Lee W, Kim HC, Shon WJ, Baek SH. Multivariate analysis of the cleaning efficacy of different final irrigation techniques in the canal and isthmus of mandibular posterior teeth. Restor Dent Endod 2013; 38: 154-9.
49. Desai P, Himel V. Comparative safety of various intracanal irrigation systems. J Endod 2009; 35: 545-9.