IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS IN CLINICAL ENDODONTICS: TYPES, PROPERTIES AND ACTIVATION MECHANISMS

Article Sidebar

PDF (Uzbek (Latin))
Published: 2025-06-05
DOI: https://doi.org/10.66073/researchfocus.v4i5.1648
Keywords:
Endodontics, Irrigation, Sodium hypochlorite, EDTA, Chlorhexidine, Ultrasonic irrigation, Biofilm, Root canal disinfection, Laser irrigation

Main Article Content

Ergashev Bekzod Jaloliddin o‘g‘li
Central Asian Medical University xalqaro tibbiyot universiteti, Burhoniddin

Abstract

This literature review provides a comprehensive analysis of the types, properties and activation mechanisms of the irrigation solutions used in clinical endodontics. On the basis of 58 current studies, sodium hypochlorite is recognised as the main irrigant owing to its broad-spectrum antimicrobial and tissue-dissolving properties. EDTA has been shown to be effective in removing the smear layer. Although the multifunctional properties of modern irrigants such as MTAD and QMix have been emphasised, their clinical results have not yet been fully proved. The activation of irrigants is of decisive importance in raising the effectiveness of irrigation. Passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) stands out as the most effective method for increasing irrigant penetration and eliminating biofilm. Sonic activation, negative pressure systems and laser-assisted irrigation have been studied as alternative or auxiliary options. The analysis confirms that combining NaOCl and EDTA with ultrasonic activation gives the best result for optimal disinfection and long-term clinical success. Safety considerations, in particular irrigant extrusion and the toxic effect on tissues, must be taken into account when selecting a clinical protocol.

Article Details

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 5 (2025): Research Focus International Scientific Journal. Volume 4, Issue 5 (2025)

Section

14.00.00 – Medical sciences
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

IRRIGATION SOLUTIONS IN CLINICAL ENDODONTICS: TYPES, PROPERTIES AND ACTIVATION MECHANISMS. (2025). Research Focus International Scientific Journal, 4(5), 215-222. https://doi.org/10.66073/researchfocus.v4i5.1648

References

Basrani, B. (2012). Endodontic irrigation: chemical disinfection of the root canal system. Springer.

Haapasalo, M., Endal, U., Zandi, H., & Coil, J. M. (2005). Eradication of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation solutions. Endodontic Topics, 10(1), 77–102.

Zehnder, M. (2006). Root canal irrigants. Journal of Endodontics, 32(5), 389–398.

Siqueira, J. F., & Rôças, I. N. (2008). Clinical implications and microbiology of bacterial persistence after treatment procedures. Journal of Endodontics, 34(11), 1291–1301.

Mohammadi, Z., & Shalavi, S. (2014). Sodium hypochlorite in endodontics: an update review. International Dental Journal, 64(6), 329–341.

Byström, A., & Sundqvist, G. (1985). The antibacterial action of sodium hypochlorite and EDTA in 60 cases of endodontic therapy. International Endodontic Journal, 18(1), 35–40.

Torabinejad, M., & Walton, R. E. (2009). Endodontics: Principles and practice (4th ed.). Saunders.

Giardino, L., Ambu, E., Savoldi, E., Rimondini, R., & Debbia, E. A. (2007). Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of sodium hypochlorite, MTAD, and tetraclean against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm. Journal of Endodontics, 33(7), 852–855.

Baumgartner, J. C., Cuenin, P. R., & Langeland, K. (1987). Efficacy of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite for root canal debridement. Journal of Endodontics, 13(2), 59–66.

Retamozo, B., Shabahang, S., Johnson, N., Aprecio, R., & Torabinejad, M. (2010). Minimum contact time and concentration of sodium hypochlorite required to eliminate Enterococcus faecalis. Journal of Endodontics, 36(3), 520–523.

Haapasalo, M., & Ørstavik, D. (1987). In vitro infection and disinfection of dentinal tubules. Journal of Dental Research, 66(8), 1375–1379.

Hülsmann, M., & Hahn, W. (2000). Complications during root canal irrigation—literature review and case reports. International Endodontic Journal, 33(3), 186–193.

Mohammadi, Z. (2008). Chlorhexidine: Its properties and applications in endodontics. Iranian Endodontic Journal, 3(3), 113–122.

Kuruvilla, J. R., & Kamath, M. P. (1998). Antimicrobial activity of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate against Enterococcus faecalis. Journal of Endodontics, 24(7), 472–476.

Estrela, C., Estrela, C. R., Barbin, E. L., Spanó, J. C., Marchesan, M. A., & Pécora, J. D. (2002). Mechanism of action of sodium hypochlorite. Brazilian Dental Journal, 13(2), 113–117.

Tay, F. R., Gu, L. S., Schoeffel, G. J., Wimmer, C., Susin, L., Zhang, K., & Pashley, D. H. (2010). Effect of irrigation sequence on the removal of smear layer and debris with self-adjusting file. Journal of Endodontics, 36(4), 704–708.

Plotino, G., Pameijer, C. H., Grande, N. M., & Somma, F. (2007). Ultrasonics in endodontics: a review of the literature. Journal of Endodontics, 33(2), 81–95.

van der Sluis, L. W., Versluis, M., Wu, M. K., & Wesselink, P. R. (2007). Passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: a review of the literature. International Endodontic Journal, 40(6), 415–426.

Norrington, J., & Cameron, J. A. (2012). Negative pressure irrigation in endodontics: a review of efficacy. Australian Endodontic Journal, 38(2), 64–70.

Tay, F. R., Gu, L. S., Kim, J., & Pashley, D. H. (2010). Effect of EDTA and tetraclean on the smear layer and biofilm removal. Journal of Endodontics, 36(3), 536–540.

Zehnder, M., Kosicki, D., Luder, H. U., Sener, B., & Waltimo, T. (2002). Tissue-dissolution capacity and dentin-disinfection potential of hypochlorite-based irrigants. Journal of Endodontics, 28(9), 661–663.

Nielsen, B. A., & Baumgartner, J. C. (2007). Comparison of the EndoVac system to needle irrigation of root canals. Journal of Endodontics, 33(5), 611–615.

Mancini, M., Armellin, E., Casaglia, A., Cerroni, L., Cianconi, L., & Conte, G. (2013). A comparative study of smear layer removal and erosion using different irrigating solutions. Journal of Endodontics, 39(8), 993–996.

Gu, L. S., Kim, J. R., Ling, J., Choi, K. K., Pashley, D. H., & Tay, F. R. (2009). Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. Journal of Endodontics, 35(6), 791–804.

Alves, F. R. F., Almeida, B. M., Neves, M. A., Moreno, J. O., & Rôças, I. N. (2011). Disinfecting efficacy of high-powered lasers and ultrasonics. Journal of Endodontics, 37(9), 1272–1275.

Ordinola-Zapata, R., Bramante, C. M., Garcia, R. B., & de Andrade, F. B. (2013). The antimicrobial effect of new irrigating solutions against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm. Journal of Endodontics, 39(7), 873–877.

Siqueira, J. F., Rôças, I. N., Favieri, A., Lima, K. C., & Lopes, H. P. (2003). Chemomechanical reduction of the bacterial population in the root canal after instrumentation and irrigation. Journal of Endodontics, 29(3), 133–137.

Ahmad, M., Pitt Ford, T. R., & Crum, L. A. (1987). Ultrasonic debridement of root canals: acoustic streaming and its possible role. Journal of Endodontics, 13(10), 490–499.

Meire, M. A., De Prijck, K., Coenye, T., Nelis, H. J., & De Moor, R. J. (2012). Effectiveness of different laser systems to kill Enterococcus faecalis in aqueous suspension and in an infected tooth model. International Endodontic Journal, 45(5), 435–443.

Kandaswamy, D., Venkateshbabu, N., Porkodi, I., & Pradeep, G. (2010). Dentinal tubule disinfection with 2% chlorhexidine gel, propolis, morinda citrifolia juice, and formocresol using Enterococcus faecalis: an in vitro study. Journal of Endodontics, 36(5), 831–833.