Comparison of Various Irrigation Techniques for the Removal of Silicone Oil-Based Calcium Hydroxide Intracanal Medicament from the Apical Third: An SEM Study

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the efficacy of various irrigants (5.25% sodium hypochlorite [NaOCl] followed by 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid [EDTA] and 0.2% chitosan nanoparticle [NP]) and different irrigation techniques (conventional and EndoVac) for the removal of Metapex from the apical third of the root canal by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis.

Materials and Methods Forty extracted single-rooted human premolars were instrumented using a rotary ProTaper file system up to F3. The canals were dried and Metapex was placed inside the root canal. The access cavity was sealed with a cotton pellet and Cavit followed by the storage of specimens at 37°C at 100% humidity for 1 week. Cavit was removed and the samples were divided into: Group 1 (conventional irrigation using 5.25% NaOCl and 17% EDTA, n = 10), Group 2 (conventional irrigation using 0.2% chitosan NP, n = 10), Group 3 (EndoVac using 5.25% NaOCl and 17% EDTA, n = 10), and Group 4 (EndoVac using 0.2% chitosan NP, n = 10). After irrigant activation, the roots were divided in half, and the apical third of one-half of each tooth was subjected to SEM analysis. A five-graded scoring scale was used to evaluate dentinal wall cleanliness. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance.

Results There were statistically significant differences in mean canal cleanliness scores observed between the four groups. Chitosan NPs showed lower mean canal cleanliness scores at the apical one-third of the root canal indicating better cleanliness when compared with the other irrigants and techniques.

Conclusion None of the irrigation techniques was successful in entirely removing the calcium hydroxide intracanal medicament from the apical third.

Keywords

calcium hydroxide - cetrimide - chitosan - EndoVac - intracanal medicament

Introduction

Root canal treatment (RCT), the primary goal of endodontic treatment, is to prevent and control pulpal and periradicular infections. Given the importance of microbes in the etiology of these infections, it is evident that reducing or eliminating them is critical to the success of endodontic therapy.[1] While mechanical preparation of infected root canals may remove microorganisms, some bacteria hide in isthmuses, apical deltas, dentinal tubules, and ramifications due to the root canal system's complexity. Thus, intracanal medicaments could help eliminate these hidden bacteria.[2]

Calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)₂) is currently the most extensively used intracanal medication. Due to its well-documented antibacterial efficacy against most endodontic infections, it is extensively used as a root canal dressing between treatment sessions. The highly alkaline environment created by Ca(OH)₂ is unfavorable to most bacteria.[3]

Ca(OH)₂ can be injected inside the root canal using a variety of carriers, including water, carboxymethyl cellulose, glycerin, and silicone oil. The physical and chemical properties of Ca(OH)₂ are affected by the type of vehicle used. Calcium and hydroxyl ions are released quickly in aqueous vehicles, whereas ionic dissociation takes longer in oily vehicles.[4]

Despite the efficacy of Ca(OH)₂ as an intracanal medicament, certain bacterial species have been observed to be resistant to total eradication, including Enterococcus faecalis.[2] In these scenarios, Ca(OH)₂ paste with a silicone oil-based carrier containing 38% iodoform (Metapex [Meta Biomed, Korea]) is preferred over Ca(OH)₂ alone because it disinfects dentinal tubules infected with E. faecalis better.[5]

Before starting the obturation, the Ca(OH)₂ medicament should be removed to avoid any interference with the obturating material and to permit maximum adherence between the sealer and the root canal wall.[6] Silicone oil-based Ca(OH)₂ is more difficult to remove than aqueous-based Ca(OH)₂ due to lesser penetration of the irrigant through the silicone oil layer.[7]

It has been demonstrated that eliminating Ca(OH)₂ intracanal medication requires sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (5.25%) followed by a final rinse of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (17%).

For the removal of the remaining Ca(OH)₂ from the root canal, a variety of root canal irrigants, including saline, NaOCl, and EDTA, can be used alone or in conjunction with several techniques, including EndoVac, EndoActivator, CanalBrush, Max-i-Probe needle, and passive ultrasonic irrigation in conjunction with hand instrumentation.[8]

Chitosan nanoparticle (NP) is a nontoxic, biocompatible, biodegradable, and bioadhesive natural polysaccharide produced by deacetylating chitin.[5] Similar to EDTA and citric acid, it displays chelation characteristics but with significantly fewer negative effects.[9] The present study's purpose was to compare the efficacy of two irrigants (5.25% NaOCl followed by a final rinse of 17% EDTA, 0.2% chitosan NPs) and two techniques (conventional irrigation, EndoVac) for the removal of silicone oil-based Ca(OH)₂ medicament (Metapex) from the apical third of the root canal.

Materials and Methods

Sample size was determined based on a pilot study, by calculating mean and standard deviation. Ethical clearance was provided by institutional ethical committee (ABSM/EC66/2019) dated October 15, 2019. Forty extracted single-rooted human premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes were collected. The teeth included were caries free and with a completely formed apex. The specimens were cleaned of soft tissue and calculus using an ultrasonic device. A diamond disc (Confident Dental Equipments Ltd., India) was used to decoronate each of the 40 samples to produce a standardized root length of 15 mm. The study of Alturaiki et al formed the basis for the methodology. Root canal patency was established with a No. 15 K file (Dentsply Maillefer, Switzerland).[10] The working length (WL) was kept 1 mm short of the apex. The root canals were prepared using ProTaper rotary files till F3 (Dentsply Maillefer).

Canals were routinely cleaned with 5 mL of 17% EDTA (Anabond Stedman, Chennai, India), 5 mL of distilled water, and 5 mL of 5.25% NaOCl (Coltene, Switzerland) between each instrument. The needle was moved up and down inside the apical third during irrigation. After the canal had been dried with paper points, the access cavity was sealed with a cotton pellet and Cavit. The Metapex was then inserted into the root canal until it came out from the apex. The samples were kept for a week at 37°C and 100% humidity.

Chitosan NP was dissolved in 100 mL of 1% acetic acid, yielding a 0.2% chitosan NP solution. The provisional restoration was removed and the samples were randomly divided into four groups:

• Group 1 (conventional irrigation using 5.25% NaOCl and 17% EDTA, n = 10): The removal of CH was performed with a conventional irrigation needle with 5 mL of 5.25% NaOCl followed up by 5 mL of 17% EDTA. For 60 seconds, a continuous flow was applied while moving the needle up and down within the apical third. By positioning the rubber stopper 1 to 2 mm short of the operating length, the needle depth was standardized for each canal.

• Group 2 (conventional irrigation using 0.2% chitosan NPs, n = 10): The CH removal was done with 5 mL of 0.2% chitosan NPs and a conventional irrigation needle with the same technique as described earlier.

• Group 3 (EndoVac using 5.25% NaOCl and 17% EDTA, n = 10): Using the EndoVac device, the canals were irrigated for 30 seconds with each solution, 5 mL of 5.25% NaOCl and 5 mL of 17% EDTA.

• Group 4 (EndoVac using 0.2% chitosan NPs, n = 10): CH removal was performed using 0.2% chitosan NPs in combination with the EndoVac system for 60 seconds.

The decoronated teeth are longitudinally sectioned before scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis following pretreatment and Metapex implantation. A similar methodology is used in this investigation as well. It is claimed that longitudinal sectioning will result in a more precise measurement of the root canal residuals.[11]

After irrigant activation, the roots were divided into two halves buccolingually without perforating the root canal and SEM analysis was performed for one half of each tooth at a magnification of ×2,000 (Carl Zeiss Sigma FESEM 03-81) at the apical third ([Fig. 1]). For SEM analysis, the samples were dehydrated, then fixed on aluminum stubs, and finally coated with gold sputtering. Two endodontists who were blinded to the samples being tested evaluated the SEM photomicrographs for cleanliness. The degree of Ca(OH)₂ medication removal and dentinal wall cleaning was assessed using a five-grade scoring system.[10] They are as follows: Score 1: 80 to 100% CH removal (total cleanliness); Score 2: 60 to 80% CH removal (great cleanliness); Score 3: 40 to 60% CH removal (partial cleanliness); Score 4: 20 to 40% CH removal (light cleanliness), and Score 5: 0 to 20% CH removal (no cleanliness).

Fig. 1 Scanning electron microscopy images of the apical third of the root canal at ×2,000 magnification.

Results

The study followed the protocol of double blinding during the whole procedure, where each sample was examined by two people blindly and evaluated. Sample size was 10 per group. As four groups were included in this study, it gave an overall sample size of 40. Where between group variance was 0.83, power was 80% and an α error of 5%, which gave the required sample size of 40, where sample size per group is 10.

Since this was a qualitative analysis, chi-square test was done. The p-value associated with the chi-square test is less than 0.001, which is highly significant ([Table 1]). To compare the difference between each group, one-way analysis of variance was done. On comparison of the degree of Ca(OH)₂ removal, the highest mean is seen in Group 1 (4.3) followed by Group 2 (3.5), Group 3 (3), and the least value in Group 4 (1.7). This parameter is statistically significant with a p-value of <0.001. To compare each group, post hoc analysis was done which indicates significant differences between Groups 1 and 3, Groups 1 and 4, Groups 2 and 4, Groups 3 and 4 with a p-value of less than 0.05 for each.

Table 1 Depicting degree of calcium hydroxide removal

Degree of calcium hydroxide removal			Group				Total
			Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4
	Score 1	Count	0	0	0	4	4
		% within group	0%	0%	0%	40%	10%
	Score 2	Count	0	0	2	5	7
		% within group	0%	0%	20%	50%	17.5%
	Score 3	Count	2	5	6	1	14
		% within group	20%	50%	60%	10%	35%
	Score 4	Count	3	5	2	0	10
		% within group	30%	50%	20%	0%	25%
	Score 5	Count	5	0	0	0	5
		% within group	50%	0%	0%	0%	12.5%
Total		Count	10	10	10	10	40
		% within group	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%

Chitosan NPs showed the least mean canal cleanliness scores at the apical one-third of the root canal when compared with the other irrigants along with EndoVac method (1.7 ± 0.675). A significant difference in mean canal cleanliness scores was observed in the four groups (p = 0.00).

The conventional needle irrigation method showed higher scores of canal cleanliness in the apical area when compared with the EndoVac method with the irrigating solutions used and a statistically significant difference was observed between the methods at p < 0.05.

Results of the study indicated that there is statistical difference between the values of the group with significant p-value. Ca(OH)₂ removal with EndoVac using 0.2% chitosan NPs has shown better results as compared with all the other groups.

Discussion

Intracanal medicaments reduce bacterial growth in the canal and prevent the spread of infection within the root canal by acting as a physiochemical barrier. Ca(OH)₂ is proven to be an effective intracanal medicament due to its excellent antimicrobial properties, neutralization of bacterial endotoxins, and in periapical tissue repair. The complete removal of intracanal medicaments might be impracticable many times due to the morphological variations of the root and canal wall irregularities. Therefore, in the current study, the extracted single-canal human premolars with straight roots were used.[8] [12]

The residual intracanal medicament may serve as an irritant causing failure of endodontic treatment.[13] Additionally, when residual Ca(OH)₂ interacts with zinc oxide and eugenol-based sealers, calcium eugenolate is created, which is brittle in consistency and has a granulated structure due to which the sealer penetration is hindered.

Moreover, the interaction of residual Ca(OH)₂ with zinc oxide and eugenol-based sealers leads to the formation of calcium eugenolate. The former, being brittle with a granular structure, impedes the sealer penetration into the dentinal tubules, which can eventually impact the treatment outcome.[14] Hence, complete removal of the residual intracanal medicament before obturation of the root canals has been suggested.[15]

Aqueous vehicles are the most often utilized carriers for Ca(OH)₂ intracanal medication because they encourage quick ion liberation, while viscous and oily vehicles release calcium and hydroxyl ions over longer periods, minimizing the number of dressing-changing sessions. However, the use of intracanal medications with oily vehicles may leave a residue on the root canal walls that will make it harder for the sealer to attach to the walls, which will affect the treatment outcome.[16] A study done by Sokhi et al, to evaluate the effect of three CH-based intracanal medicaments on the apical sealing ability of AH Plus—gutta-percha obturation, concluded that the vehicle used to carry Ca(OH)₂ intracanal medication may significantly influence the apical sealing ability of gutta-percha—AH Plus obturated canals.[17] [18]

Numerous studies have suggested the method of Ca(OH)₂ removal from the root canal walls.[8] [10] The most commonly used clinical technique for the removal of Ca(OH)₂ intracanal medicament is by using the master apical file combined with numerous irrigants such as normal saline, NaOCl, EDTA, alone and in combination.[18] [19]

In the present study, the objective was to assess the efficacy of 5.25% NaOCl followed by a final rinse of 17% EDTA and 0.2% chitosan NPs used with conventional irrigation and EndoVac for the removal of Metapex from the apical third of the root canal by SEM analysis. The outcomes showed that none of the techniques was successful in eliminating the Ca(OH)₂ medication from the apical third.

NaOCl has been commonly used in endodontics in various concentrations as the primary root canal irrigant due to its antibacterial activity against a wide array of microorganisms, including Enterococcus, Actinomyces, and Candida species, which are difficult to eliminate from the root canals. Based on the previous studies, the best irrigation protocol for the removal of Ca(OH)₂ intracanal medicament is by using 5.25% NaOCl and 17% EDTA.[8] During the canal preparation method, alternating between NaOCl and EDTA solutions decreases debris formation and results in cleaner canals, according to various studies.

Chitosan's chelating mechanism on dentin has not been well documented. This bioactive biopolymer, on the other hand, is commonly employed as a chelating agent to remove heavy metals from wastewater. The chelating mechanism of chitosan has been explained using two theories. To begin, the bridge model proposes that two or more chitosan amino groups are attached to the same metal ion. Second, the pendant model implies that just one amino group is used in the binding, and the metal ion is suspended from the amino group.[20] The chelation of calcium ions in dentin, which results in the loss of inorganic materials from the smear layer, could be caused by any of the two methods. A study, done to investigate the ability of bioactive chitosan NPs to remove the smear layer and inhibit bacterial recolonization on dentin, concluded that it could be used as a final irrigant during RCT with the dual benefit of removing the smear layer and inhibiting bacterial recolonization on root dentin.[21] Another study concluded that 17% EDTA is a potent chelating agent that can successfully remove the smear layer but compromises the Ca/P ratio of dentin. However, 0.2% chitosan and its NPs have comparable chelating effects and induce remineralization of the root canal dentin.[22]

Various methods such as capturing images using a digital camera, stereomicroscope, micro-computed tomography (CT), and cone beam CT have been used to assess the cleanliness of the root canal walls. Most of the studies assessed the amount of residual intracanal medicament in the canal walls by measuring the surface area of the residues on the canal walls. The amount covered is then scored, and estimated through SEM, or by volumetric analysis using spiral CT.[9]

SEM is considered a standard and the most reliable approach to examine and evaluate canal cleanliness after the removal of Ca(OH)₂ using various recent technologies along with irrigants. Nandini et al used volumetric analysis with spiral CT to evaluate Ca(OH)₂ elimination. The present work used SEM analysis to emphasize the condition of the dentinal tubules despite the benefits of spiral CT, such as three-dimensional volume measurements of the remaining Ca(OH)₂ packed in the canal without root sectioning (open, eroded, and occluded).[11] [23]

In the present study, the removal of Metapex from the apical third of the root canal using conventional irrigation technique and EndoVac technique with 5.25% NaOCl followed by a final rinse of 17% EDTA and 0.2% chitosan NPs was assessed. The comparison of the effectiveness of the irrigants, as well as the techniques, was evaluated using SEM in the apical third of the root canal. A five-grade scoring scale was used which determines the extent of cleanliness of the canal by the percentage of Ca(OH)₂ removed.[8] [10]

Considering the irrigant used in the present study, 0.2% chitosan NPs was found to be the most effective using the EndoVac technique. EndoVac has the advantage of producing negative pressure and allowing for safe use up to the WL without irrigant extrusion past the apical constriction of the canal. It makes use of a suction device with a macro- or microcannula connected to it. A negative pressure is created by the cannula, which is attached to a high-speed suction. This draws the irrigant to the cannula's tip and pokes little holes in it to let the irrigation solution and debris escape. A study conducted to compare the debridement efficacy of EndoVac irrigation versus conventional needle irrigation in vivo concluded that EndoVac irrigation resulted in significantly less debris at 1 mm from WL compared with conventional needle irrigation.[24] Another study done to compare the smear layer removal efficacy of 17% EDTA, 0.2% chitosan NPs, and QMix 2in1 at apical third of root canal system, using EndoVac system concluded that the final irrigation with QMix 2in1 solution aids in better smear layer removal at the apical third of the root canal system, using EndoVac system irrigation system.[25] The current study's findings are supported by prior research that indicates the EndoVac system leaves substantially less debris behind than conventional irrigation techniques when used with both irrigants.[21] [26]

Conventional syringe irrigation has been widely used for the delivery of irrigants due to the ease of control of the needle penetration depth into the canal space and the quantity of the irrigant that is flushed through the canal. An irrigant's hydrodynamic activation is enhanced by agitating the needle by moving it up and down within the canal. It also reduces the chance of apical extrusion of the irrigant. The needle placed within the canal should remain loose during irrigation to allow the backflow of the irrigant, which also helps in the coronal displacement of the debris and avoids the periapical extrusion of the irrigant.[27]

The most commonly used irrigation technology is still the conventional irrigation technique due to several reasons such as its simplicity, ease of controlling the depth of needle penetration, and irrigant volume flushed down through the canal. The results of this study demonstrate the necessity for more sophisticated irrigation techniques, such as EndoVac. Literature implies that using an agitation system can improve the action of the irrigant, thereby improving its efficacy in removing Ca(OH)_2. [8]

Limitations and Future Directions

While these in vitro findings are promising, they may not translate directly to clinical situations due to the complexities present. In vivo studies are crucial to validate these findings in a clinical context, as the current in vitro environment may not fully represent real-world conditions. Another limitation of the present study was less sample size, it can be done with a larger sample size. Future research should explore other optimal concentrations of the different agents used, different agitation techniques such as ultrasonic agitation, and potential synergistic effects with different irrigants to maximize the medicament removal and treatment efficacy.

Conclusion

The present study has limitations as it is an in vitro study and should be performed in a large number of samples in a simulated clinical environment. Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the EndoVac technique along with 0.2% chitosan NPs proved to be the most effective in removing the silicone oil-based intracanal medicament from the apical third of the root canal.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

• References

• 1 Sathorn C, Parashos P, Messer H. Antibacterial efficacy of calcium hydroxide intracanal dressing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Endod J 2007; 40 (01) 2-10
• 2 Anis Motiwala M, Badar SB, Ghafoor R. Comparison of two different methods in the removal of oil-based calcium hydroxide from root canal system: a triple-blinded randomised clinical trial. Eur Endod J 2021; 6 (01) 38-43
• 3 Siqueira Jr JF, Lopes HP. Mechanisms of antimicrobial activity of calcium hydroxide: a critical review. Int Endod J 1999; 32 (05) 361-369
• 4 Fava LR, Saunders WP. Calcium hydroxide pastes: classification and clinical indications. Int Endod J 1999; 32 (04) 257-282
• 5 Cwikla SJ, Bélanger M, Giguère S, Progulske-Fox A, Vertucci FJ. Dentinal tubule disinfection using three calcium hydroxide formulations. J Endod 2005; 31 (01) 50-52
• 6 Rödig T, Vogel S, Zapf A, Hülsmann M. Efficacy of different irrigants in the removal of calcium hydroxide from root canals. Int Endod J 2010; 43 (06) 519-527
• 7 Kumar P, de Ataide IN, Fernandes M, Lambor R. A cone-beam computed tomography assessment of the efficacy of different irrigation devices for removal of silicone oil-based calcium hydroxide from root canal system. J Conserv Dent 2017; 20 (02) 68-71
• 8 Chawla A, Kumar V. Evaluating the efficacy of different techniques and irrigation solutions for removal of calcium hydroxide from the root canal system: a scanning electron microscope study. J Conserv Dent 2018; 21 (04) 394-400
• 9 Raghu R, Pradeep G, Shetty A, Gautham PM, Puneetha PG, Reddy TVS. Retrievability of calcium hydroxide intracanal medicament with three calcium chelators, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, citric acid, and chitosan from root canals: an in vitro cone beam computed tomography volumetric analysis. J Conserv Dent 2017; 20 (01) 25-29
• 10 Alturaiki S, Lamphon H, Edrees H, Ahlquist M. Efficacy of 3 different irrigation systems on removal of calcium hydroxide from the root canal: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2015; 41 (01) 97-101
• 11 Kenee DM, Allemang JD, Johnson JD, Hellstein J, Nichol BK. A quantitative assessment of efficacy of various calcium hydroxide removal techniques. J Endod 2006; 32 (06) 563-565
• 12 Kirar DS, Jain P, Patni P. Comparison of different irrigation and agitation methods for the removal of two types of calcium hydroxide medicaments from the root canal wall: an in-vitro study. Clujul Med 2017; 90 (03) 327-332
• 13 Wiseman A, Cox TC, Paranjpe A, Flake NM, Cohenca N, Johnson JD. Efficacy of sonic and ultrasonic activation for removal of calcium hydroxide from mesial canals of mandibular molars: a microtomographic study. J Endod 2011; 37 (02) 235-238
• 14 Türker SA, Koçak MM, Koçak S, Sağlam BC. Comparison of calcium hydroxide removal by self-adjusting file, EndoVac, and CanalBrush agitation techniques: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2013; 16 (05) 439-443
• 15 Bhuyan AC, Seal M, Pendharkar K. Effectiveness of four different techniques in removing intracanal medicament from the root canals: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2015; 6 (03) 309-312
• 16 Parikh M, Kishan KV, Solanki NP. et al. Efficacy of removal of calcium hydroxide medicament from root canals by Endoactivator and Endovac irrigation techniques: a systematic review of in vitro studies. Contemp Clin Dent 2019; 10 (01) 135-142
• 17 Gomes BP, Ferraz CC, Vianna ME. et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of calcium hydroxide pastes and their vehicles against selected microorganisms. Braz Dent J 2002; 13 (03) 155-161
• 18 Sokhi RR, Sumanthini MV, Shenoy VU, Bodhwani MA. Effect of calcium hydroxide based intracanal medicaments on the apical sealing ability of resin based sealer and gutta-percha obturated root canals. J Clin Diagn Res 2017; 11 (01) ZC75-ZC79
• 19 Stewart GG. A scanning electron microscopic study of the cleansing effectiveness of three irrigating modalities on the tubular structure of dentin. J Endod 1998; 24 (07) 485-486
• 20 Arslan H, Capar ID, Saygili G. et al. Efficacy of various irrigation protocols on the removal of triple antibiotic paste. Int Endod J 2014; 47 (06) 594-599
• 21 Nandini S, Velmurugan N, Kandaswamy D. Removal efficiency of calcium hydroxide intracanal medicament with two calcium chelators: volumetric analysis using spiral CT, an in vitro study. J Endod 2006; 32 (11) 1097-1101
• 22 Del Carpio-Perochena A, Bramante CM, Duarte MA, de Moura MR, Aouada FA, Kishen A. Chelating and antibacterial properties of chitosan nanoparticles on dentin. Restor Dent Endod 2015; 40 (03) 195-201
• 23 Abdelkafy H, Elsheikh HM, Kataia MM. et al. Efficacy of using chitosan and chitosan nanoparticles as final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal and mineral content of intraradicular dentin. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2023; 41 (02) 170-177
• 24 Schoeffel GJ. The EndoVac method of endodontic irrigation, part 2–efficacy. Dent Today 2008; 27 (01) 82 , 84, 86–87
• 25 Kuga MC, Tanomaru-Filho M, Faria G, Só MV, Galletti T, Bavello JR. Calcium hydroxide intracanal dressing removal with different rotary instruments and irrigating solutions: a scanning electron microscopy study. Braz Dent J 2010; 21 (04) 310-314
• 26 Karuppiah G, Ahamed AS, Sreekrishnapillai B. et al. Comparison of efficacy of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, 0.2% chitosan nanoparticles, and Qmix 2in1 in smear layer removal at apical third of root canal, using EndoVac system irrigation system–an in vitro scanning electron microscope study. Endodontology 2021; 33 (04) 206-211
• 27 Siu C, Baumgartner JC. Comparison of the debridement efficacy of the EndoVac irrigation system and conventional needle root canal irrigation in vivo. J Endod 2010; 36 (11) 1782-1785

Publication History

Article published online:
05 July 2024