Current trends in endodontic irrigation amongst general dental practitioners and dental schools within the United Kingdom and Ireland: a cross-sectional survey

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice towards Chelating Agents in Endodontic Treatment among Dental Practitioners

The use of chelating agents (CAs) in the endodontic irrigation protocol is required to dissolve the inorganic components of the smear layer. We aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice of dental professionals regarding the use of CAs during root canal treatment. A cross-sectional anonymous online survey was conducted among specialized endodontists and general dentists who routinely perform endodontic treatment and work in government-funded or private clinics in Moscow. The 8 min survey consisted of four parts: basic demographic data, knowledge (five items), attitude (four items), and practice (five items). We collected 376 completed questionnaires; a majority of the respondents were general dentists (87.5%) and worked in private clinics (77.4%). Most respondents (83.5%) showed a fair knowledge of the CAs used in endodontics, while 16.5% showed a poor knowledge of the topic. Small yet significant differences were found between endodontists and general practitioners and between dentists employed by private and government-funded clinics. A majority of dental practitioners (83%) demonstrated a positive attitude towards the use of CAs in endodontic treatment, and there were no differences among the study subgroups. Almost a third of the respondents always used chelating solutions during endodontic treatment, while 17% of the respondents did not use them at all. There were significant differences in this parameter between dentists working in private and government-funded clinics. Practice significantly correlated with attitude towards chelating agents and with knowledge of the topic. In conclusion, dental practitioners demonstrated a fair knowledge of CAs. Despite a positive attitude, 71% of the respondents did not use CAs for all endodontic patients.

Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Ultrasonically-activated irrigation (UAI) is effective in root canal irrigation but may damage canal walls. EDDY is a sonic activation system with flexible working tips that cause no harm to dentinal walls. This review explores the intracanal cleaning efficacy of EDDY compared with UAI in vitro.

METHODS

The systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021235826). A literature search was conducted in six electronic databases. In vitro studies that compared the removal of smear layer, debris, soft tissue or microbes in root canals between EDDY and UAI were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed. Meta-analyses were conducted on smear layer removal and debris elimination with the standardized mean difference (SMD). Heterogeneity was measured using the I² test and the Chi² test. The random-effect model was used when I² > 50%, or p < 0.1, otherwise the fixed-effect model was applied. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

19 articles were included in this systematic review and 7 articles were included in meta-analyses. Meta-analyses on smear layer removal showed unimportant differences between EDDY and UAI at any canal third (coronal [SMD = 0.08, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -0.29 to 0.45; p = 0.44, I² = 0%]; middle [SMD = 0.02, 95% CI: -0.44 to 0.47; p = 0.94, I² = 0%]; apical [SMD = 0.01, 95%CI: -0.35 to 0.38; p = 0.70, I² = 0%]). Meta-analyses on debris removal evaluated by scanning electron microscope (coronal [SMD = 0.03, 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.46; p = 0.27, I² = 23%]; middle [SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.83 to 0.35; p = 0.80, I² = 0%]; apical [SMD = 0.24, 95%CI: -0.20 to 0.67; p = 0.36, I² = 2%]) and micro-CT (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI: -0.67 to 1.40; p = 0.03, I² = 70%) both found insignificant differences. No meta-analysis was undertaken on soft-tissue removal and disinfection due to the various study designs, but the qualitative analyses implied that EDDY achieved similar performance to UAI in both aspects.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence indicated that EDDY was comparable to UAI in removing smear layer, debris, soft tissue and microbes ex vivo. Considering UAI may damage canal walls, EDDY might be a substitute for UAI in irrigation activation. But more randomized clinical trials are required to explore the clinical extrapolation of the results in this review.

Conventional vs ultrasonic irrigation - which leads to less post-operative pain?

Data sources Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and OpenGrey databases were systematically searched to find studies comparing post-operative pain experienced following root canal treatment with ultrasonic and conventional irrigation (up to May 2021). Hand searching of selected journals was also performed.Study selection Randomised controlled trials assessing post-operative pain experienced following primary non-surgical root canal treatment using conventional versus ultrasonic irrigation were screened. Exclusion criteria included an unsuitable follow-up period, systemic disease among the participants, severe pain, acute apical abscess diagnoses and fewer than 12 patients per trial arm. English language only studies were included. Two reviewers independently screened the studies and disagreements were resolved by consulting a third reviewer.Data extraction and synthesis Data extracted included tooth type, root type, pre-operative diagnosis, pain recording, time of pain recording, number of patients requiring analgesics and study conclusions. Meta-analyses of different post-operative time periods (6h, 24h, 48h, 72h and 7 days) were performed using a fixed-effects model to obtain a mean difference (with 95% confidence intervals) for post-operative pain. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration protocol for randomised controlled trials. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and modified via the 'trim-and-fill' method.Results A total of six articles were included in the systematic review, of which four were included in the meta-analysis. Overall risk of bias was deemed to be 'low' with one study presenting an unclear risk with respect to selection bias. Meta-analysis demonstrated that ultrasonic agitation significantly reduced post-operative pain compared to conventional irrigation at 6, 24 and 48 hours (p <0.05) but no significant differences were found at later time points.Conclusions Ultrasonic irrigation may lead to less post-operative pain compared to conventional irrigation techniques; however, the evidence base is limited and further research is needed to support these findings.

Present status and future directions - irrigants and irrigation methods

Irrigation is considered the primary means of cleaning and disinfection of the root canal system. The purpose of this review was to set the framework for the obstacles that irrigation needs to overcome, to critically appraise currently used irrigants and irrigation methods, to highlight knowledge gaps and methodological limitations in the available studies and to provide directions for future developments. Organization of bacteria in biofilms located in anatomic intricacies of the root canal system and the difficulty to eliminate them is the main challenge for irrigants. Sodium hypochlorite remains the primary irrigant of choice, but it needs to be supplemented by a chelator. Delivery of the irrigants using a syringe and needle and activation by an ultrasonic file are the most popular irrigation methods. There is no evidence that any adjunct irrigation method, including ultrasonic activation, can improve the long‐term outcome of root canal treatment beyond what can be achieved by instrumentation and syringe irrigation. It is necessary to redefine the research priorities in this field and investigate in greater depth the penetration of the irrigants, their effect on the biofilm and the long‐term treatment outcome. New studies must also focus on clinically relevant comparisons, avoid methodological flaws and have sufficiently large sample sizes to reach reliable conclusions. Future multidisciplinary efforts combining the knowledge from basic sciences such as Chemistry, Microbiology and Fluid Dynamics may lead to more effective antimicrobials and improved activation methods to bring them closer to the residual biofilm in the root canal system.

Clinical and microbiological effects of ultrasonically activated irrigation versus syringe irrigation during endodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

This study aimed to systematically review clinical and microbiology-related effects of ultrasonically activated irrigation (UAI) compared to syringe irrigation (SI) during endodontic treatment. Electronic databases searching and manual searching were conducted. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included comparing UAI to SI. The RoB 2.0 Cochrane tool was used for risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment. The main outcomes were postoperative pain, treatment failure, and microbiology-related outcomes. Qualitative and quantitative analyses, wherever applicable, were performed. Risk ratios (RR) and [standardized] mean differences {[S]MD} were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE tool. Ten RCTs were included. UAI reduced pain incidence within the first 24 h (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35-0.71, 308 teeth) and microbial counts (SMD_pooled - 0.40, 95% CI [- 0.78, - 0.02], I² = 0%, 126 teeth) than SI in non-vital teeth with apical periodontitis (AP). Both groups, however, had similar effects regarding pain intensity, lipopolysaccharide amounts, and the incidence of rescue-analgesic intake, treatment failure, and microbial presence (p > 0.05). CoE ranged from low to very low. Very limited evidence suggests that UAI could reduce postoperative-pain risk within the first 24 h and microbial counts for non-vital teeth with AP compared to SI. Most meta-analyses, however, are based on very few studies, mostly low-powered, with an overall very-low-to-low CoE. Further well-designed, larger RCTs are, thus, required.