Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 24, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Root canal debris removal using different irrigating needles: an SEM study
Sheetal Ghivari1, Girish Kubasad
1Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sharad Pawar Dental College, Swangi (Meghe), Wardha, India.
Aim:
This study was carried out to compare the efficacy of three irrigating needle designs in removal of debris from different parts of the root canal.
Materials And Methods:
Thirty human maxillary canines were prepared using HERO Shaper rotary system and irrigated with 1 ml of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) after each instrument change. Three 25-gauge irrigation needle designs - brush-covered Navi Tip FX (Group I), side-vented needle RC Twents (Group II) and single-beveled (Group III) irrigating needles - were tested for their efficiency in debris removal in three different parts of the root canal (n=10 canals per group). Following instrumentation, the roots were vertically sectioned and divided into coronal, middle and apical thirds for observation under scanning electron microscope (×200 magnification). Debris on the canal wall was evaluated by using a four-scale scoring system described by Paque and his co-workers.
Results:
The canals irrigated with brush-covered needle Navi Tip FX (Group I) showed lower average debris score, indicating greater removal of debris in coronal third as compared to middle and apical thirds, whereas the canals irrigated with side-vented needle (Group II) and single-beveled needle (Group III) exhibited lower average score in the middle third than coronal and apical thirds. All the three needle designs exhibited higher debris score in apical third of the root canal. Tukey multiple comparisons test was applied at a significance level of P>0.05. A statistically significant difference (P<0.05) was observed in the debris removal in the coronal and middle thirds of root canals irrigated with brush-covered Navi Tip FX (Group I) and side-vented (Group II) needles, respectively, when compared with other needle design groups.
Conclusion:
Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that all the needle designs tested were effective in certain regions of the root canal with apical third uncleaned. Side-vented needle by creating turbulence removed debris effectively in coronal and middle thirds.
