Objectives: To evaluate the cleaning efficacy of different irrigation activation techniques in removing smear layers from root canals. Materials and methods: Ninety lower premolars with straight root canals were assigned to six experimental groups (n = 15 each): control group, conventional irrigation, passive ultrasonic activation (PUI), distilled water laser-activated irrigation (LAI), PulpSucker irrigation, and iVac irrigation. Each canal was shaped to size 30/04 and irrigated with 5% NaOCl. The final rinse was performed according to the experimental group. After chemo-mechanical procedures, the teeth were split longitudinally and subjected to scanning electron microscopic (SEM) analysis for each root canal third (coronal, middle, and apical). The presence of smear layer was evaluated using a 5-grade scoring system at 500× and 1000× magnification. Following the Shapiro-Wilk test, data were statistically analyzed using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by the post-hoc Dunn test with Bonferroni correction (α = 5%), to compare the effectiveness of smear layer removal. The Friedman test and post-hoc Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction (α = 5%) were performed to assess significant differences in smear layer removal among the different tooth thirds. Results: Activated irrigation techniques significantly outperformed conventional irrigation (p <.05), with the iVac technique demonstrating the best results in smear layer removal in the apical third. LAI and PUI showed comparable results across all tooth thirds. Significant differences in cleaning efficacy were observed among the different tooth thirds within each experimental group, with the apical third exhibiting the highest presence of smear layer. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, irrigant activation demonstrated higher efficiency in smear layer removal from root canal systems compared to conventional irrigation techniques. iVac showed the best cleaning performance in each third, particularly in the apical third. Clinical relevance: iVac technology offers significant potential for improving clinical outcomes.

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the applicability of a novel Print and Try technique in the presence of aberrant endodontic anatomies and to achieve a predictable treatment with improved outcome. According to guidelines, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is recommended in the presence of complex anatomies. The volumes were utilized to produce a stereo lithographic (STL) file, from which a 3D-plastic tooth model including a hollow root canal system was obtained. The 3D-patient-specific model facilitates the treatment planning and the trial of therapeutic approaches. Using a transparent material, all the treatment steps could be directly visualized. Subsequently, endodontic therapy could be performed in vivo with reduced operating time and with a better overview. Clinicians benefit from the Print and Try technique when facing a complicated root canal system with reduced stress and higher chances of success. In aberrant endodontic anatomies, the use of a transparent 3D plastic model, derived from the CBCT dicom, provides an exact preview of clinical challenges that will be met intra-operatively. A patient centered tailored approach to shaping, cleaning, and filling strategies can be applied.

The aim of this study was to assess the differences, if any, between general dental practitioners (GDPs) and endodontists, in the diagnosis and treatment of endodontic emergencies during the worldwide outbreak of COVID-19. An online questionnaire was randomly sent by social media to clinicians in different countries from 24 April, 2020 to May 4, 2020. The survey consisted of a series of questions about demographic characteristics, endodontic emergency diagnoses, approaches to prevent aerosol formation, drug prescriptions in case of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, and the ways in which dentists managed endodontic emergencies during the COVID-19 lockdown. A total of 1,058 dentists responded to the questionnaire; 344 (32.6%) of the participants were endodontists. Slightly less than half of the participants (n = 485, 45.8%) worked during the lockdown, but only 303 participants (28.6%) treated endodontic cases/emergencies. The responses showed agreement between endodontists and GDPs regarding the diagnosis of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis (SIP), symptomatic apical periodontitis (SAP), reversible pulpitis, and asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis (AIP). SIP and SAP were considered an emergency, whereas reversible pulpitis and AIP were not considered an emergency (p > 0.05). Non-aerosol-generating procedures and treatment approaches differed between the groups (p < 0.05). One-third of the participants did not use rubber dam (p > 0.05). Ibuprofen and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid were the most frequently prescribed drugs for pain associated with SIP. In conclusion, the most relevant findings in our survey were the differences between endodontists and GDPs in diagnosis, precheck triage, deep caries excavation procedures, and endodontic emergency pain relief strategies.