Effect of Different Irrigation Systems on Sealer Penetration into Dentinal Tubules

L. Generali, F. Cavani, V. Serena, C. Pettenati, E. Righi, C. Bertoldi

Journal of Endodontics. 2017; 43(4):652-656.


INTRODUCTION: Different irrigation systems have been developed to improve the efficacy and distribution of the irrigants. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of conventional endodontic needle irrigation with other irrigant delivery and/or agitation systems on sealer penetration into dentinal tubules.

METHODS: Fifty single-rooted teeth with round-shaped root canals were distributed in 5 homogeneous groups characterized by the different cleansing system used: conventional endodontic needle irrigation, EndoActivator, Irrisafe, Self-Adjusting File, and EndoVac. After instrumentation, all teeth were filled by Thermafil obturators and rhodamine B dye labeled TopSeal sealer. Teeth were transversally sectioned at 2-, 5-, and 7-mm levels from the apex and observed under confocal laser scanning microscope. Maximum, mean, and percentage of sealer penetration inside tubules around the root canal were measured. Moreover, the integrity of the sealer layer perimeter was evaluated.

RESULTS: No significant differences both in mean (p > .05) and in maximum penetration depth (p > .05) were observed among groups, whereas both parameters showed an increased trend within each group from the 2- to the 7-mm level from apex. Similarly, the percentage of penetration around the root canal wall did not differ among groups (p > .05) and showed an increasing trend within each group from the apical to the coronal portion of the canal.

CONCLUSIONS: Sealer penetration into dentinal tubules is not affected by the irrigant delivery and/or agitation systems studied. Thermafil with TopSeal technique achieves complete sealer perimeter integrity in all groups.


Additional Info

  • ReDent Nova’s note:

    The Self-Adjusting File was not operated according to the clinical protocol. The canal was instrumented to size #40 by ProTaper, and then an SAF 1.5mm was used only sa a finisher, instead of the advised minimally-invasive protocol. In such canal size, SAF 2.0mm should have been used. In addition, the SAF was operated for 1.5 minutes instead of 4 minutes, with an irrigation rate of 2mL/min instead of 4mL/min.

    Had the clinical guidelines been followed, the results would most likely be better than the other irrigation techniques and not similar.

  • publisher: publisher
  • View abstract on PubMed. PMID: 28342477