Results showed that mechanical active irrigation reduces post-operative pain .
It improved debridement , canal/isthmus cleanliness .
It also improved delivery of irrigant up to working length .
Bacterial count was more with active irrigation , though not significant .
There is no effect on long-term periapical healing .
Conclusion It may be concluded that mechanical active irrigation devices are beneficial in reducing post-operative pain and improving canal and isthmus cleanliness during Endodontics
Objective Irrigant activation has been cl aim ed to be beneficial in in vitro and clinical studies .
This systematic review aims to investigate the clinical efficiency of mechanically activated irrigants and conventional irrigation .
Influence of an apical negative pressure irrigation system on bacterial elimination during endodontic therapy: a prospective randomized clinical study.
INTRODUCTION Recent in vitro studies that use an apical negative pressure irrigation system , EndoVac , have demonstrated promising results in the production of debris-free root canals , while also preventing potential extrusion of irrigants into the periapical region . We conducted a r and omized , controlled , prospect i ve clinical study to determine whether the use of EndoVac irrigation ( EndoVac group ) was more efficient compared with st and ard needle irrigation ( control group ) in obtaining canals from which microbes could not be cultivated . METHODS Routine endodontic therapy was performed in 48 patients with necrotic , single-rooted , single-canal teeth . The patients were r and omly assigned to either the EndoVac group ( n = 25 ) or control group ( n = 23 ) . Irrigation with either method was carried out with 0.5 % sodium hypochlorite . After surface disinfection , before instrumentation and on completion of chemomechanical preparation , intracanal microbial sample s were obtained and cultured under anaerobic conditions . The frequency of microbial cultivability by using either irrigation system was analyzed . RESULTS The frequency of obtaining culture-negative root canals was 90.9 % and 82.6 % for the control group and EndoVac group , respectively . There was no significant difference in the antimicrobial efficacy of either control group or EndoVac group ( Fisher exact test , P = .665 ) . Furthermore , no significant association between study variables and the irrigation systems ' antimicrobial efficacy was found ( P > .05 ) . CONCLUSIONS The results of this prospect i ve in vivo study demonstrate that the antimicrobial efficacy of EndoVac irrigation is comparable to that of st and ard irrigation
Results showed that mechanical active irrigation reduces post-operative pain .
It improved debridement , canal/isthmus cleanliness .
It also improved delivery of irrigant up to working length .
Bacterial count was more with active irrigation , though not significant .
There is no effect on long-term periapical healing .
Conclusion It may be concluded that mechanical active irrigation devices are beneficial in reducing post-operative pain and improving canal and isthmus cleanliness during Endodontics
Objective Irrigant activation has been cl aim ed to be beneficial in in vitro and clinical studies .
This systematic review aims to investigate the clinical efficiency of mechanically activated irrigants and conventional irrigation .