Apical pressures generated by several canal irrigation methods: A laboratory study in a maxillary central incisor with an open apex. (28th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Magni, Eva; Jäggi, Marco; Eggmann, Florin; Weiger, Roland; Connert, Thomas
• Is Part Of: International endontic journal. Volume 54:Number 10(2021)
• Page Start: 1937
• Page End: 1947
• Publication Date: 2021-07-28
• Subjects: apical extrusion -- endodontics -- immature tooth -- NaOCl accident -- root canal treatment -- sodium hypochlorite; Endodontics -- Periodicals; 617.6342
• DOI: 10.1111/iej.13575
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0143-2885

Abstract

Abstract: Aim: A laboratory study to determine the apical pressure generated by seven canal irrigation methods in an anterior tooth with an open apex. Methodology: Canal irrigation was performed on a 3D‐printed central maxillary incisor with an open apex (maximum diameter of 2.1 mm). Ultrasonically activated irrigation (UAI), sonic activation (EDDY), negative pressure irrigation (EndoVac), the self‐adjusting file (SAF) and the XP‐endo Finisher were employed at tooth length (TL), TL—1 mm, TL—2 mm and TL—3 mm. UAI was tested at three intensity levels additionally. Hydrodynamic irrigation with RinsEndo was performed in the pulp chamber, at the canal orifice, the coronal third, the middle of the canal and at TL. Er:YAG laser activation, at four frequency settings, was performed in the pulp chamber and at the orifice of the canal. The pressure of the fluid towards the canal terminus generated by activation was directly transferred to a pressure sensor with a range of 0 to 120 mmHg and a response time of ≤0.5 ms. The critical threshold for apical extrusion of the irrigant was set at 5.73 mmHg (lower limit of the central venous pressure: 5.88 ± 0.15 mmHg). Each experiment was repeated ten times. The tests were followed by descriptive analyses (maximum, mean, standard deviation, 95% confidence interval). Results: EndoVac, the SAF, the XP‐endo Finisher, and UAI never exceeded the critical threshold at any insertion depth or intensity level. Er:YAG laser activation exceeded the critical threshold exclusively at frequency settings that varied from the manufacturer's recommendation. EDDY at TL and RinsEndo at any insertion depth exceeded the critical threshold in 100% of the measurements. EDDY at TL—1, —2, and—3 mm crossed the critical threshold in 30%, 10%, and 20% of the measurements, respectively. Conclusions: In a simulated maxillary central incisor with an open apex, irrigation with EndoVac, Er:YAG laser activation, UAI, the SAF, and the XP‐endo Finisher generated apical pressures below the critical threshold of 5.73 mmHg. By contrast, using EDDY and RinsEndo for irrigation produced higher apical pressures that exceeded the critical threshold.