Search Dental Tribune

Irrigating the root canal: A case report

Post-operative radiograph (Image: Dr Vittorio Franco, UK and Italy)
Dr Vittorio Franco, UK and Italy

Dr Vittorio Franco, UK and Italy

Mon. 22 January 2018

save

The patient reported on in this article is a student in dentistry and his parents are both dentists. They referred their son to a good endodontist, who then referred the case to me. As always, peers are more than welcome in either of my practices, in Rome and London, so when I treated this case, I had three dentists watching me, a future dentist on the chair, placing a great deal of pressure on me.

The 22-year-old male patient had a history of trauma to his maxillary incisors and arrived at my practice with symptoms related to tooth #21. The tooth, opened in an emergency by the patient’s mother, was tender when prodded, with a moderate level of sensitivity on the respective buccal gingiva. Sensitivity tests were negative for the other central incisor (tooth #12 was positive), and a periapical radiograph showed radiolucency in the periapical areas of both of the central incisors. The apices of these teeth were quite wide and the length of teeth appeared to exceed 25 mm.

My treatment plan was as follows: root canal therapy with two apical plugs with a calcium silicate-based bioactive cement. The patient provided his consent for the treatment of the affected tooth and asked to have the other treated in a subsequent visit.

After isolating with a rubber dam, I removed the temporary filling, and then the entire pulp chamber roof with a low-speed round drill. The working length was immediately evaluated using an electronic apex locator and a 31 mm K-type file. The working length was determined to be 28 mm.

As can be seen in the photographs, the canal was actually quite wide, so I decided to only use an irrigating solution and not a shaping instrument. Root canals are usually shaped so that there will be enough space for proper irrigation and a proper shape for obturation. This usually means giving these canals a tapered shape to ensure good control when obturating. With open apices, a conical shape is not needed, and often there is enough space for placing the irrigating solution deep and close to the apex.

I decided to use only some syringes containing 5 per cent sodium hypochlorite and EDDY, a sonic tip produced by VDW, for delivery of the cleaning solution and to promote turbulence in the endodontic space and shear stress on the canal walls in order to remove the necrotic tissue faster and more effectively. After a rinse with sodium hypochlorite, the sonic tip was moved to and from the working length of the canal for 30 seconds. This procedure was repeated until the sodium hypochlorite seemed to become ineffective, was clear and had no bubbles. I did not use EDTA, as no debris or smear layer was produced.

I suctioned the sodium hypochlorite, checked the working length with a paper point and then obturated the canal with a of 3 mm in thickness plug of bioactive cement. I then took a radiograph before obturating the rest of the canal with warm gutta-percha. I used a compomer as a temporary filling material.

The symptoms resolved, so I conducted the second treatment only after some months, when the tooth #11 became tender. Tooth #21 had healed. I performed the same procedure and obtained the same outcome (the four-month follow-up radiograph showed healing).

Editorial note: A complete list of references are available from the publisher. This article was published in roots - international magazine of endodontology No. 04/2017.

One thought on “Irrigating the root canal: A case report

  1. The ultimate reason why root canals fail is bacteria. If our mouths were sterile there would be no decay or infection, and damaged teeth could, in ways, repair themselves. So although we can attribute nearly all root canal failure to the presence of bacteria, I will discuss five common reasons why root canals fail, and why at least four of them are mostly preventable.

To post a reply please login or register

Can AI help dental practices cut their carbon footprint?

A new article has highlighted the emergent role now being played by ChatGPT in assisting dental clinicians to make their practices more environmentally friendly. (Image: Micro Visuals/Adobe Stock)

Fri. 16 January 2026

save

DUBLIN, Ireland: Sustainability is now widely recognised as a core responsibility in dentistry, although translating this into measurable action remains challenging. Many dental teams want to reduce their environmental impact, but lack the time or expertise to measure it meaningfully. A new approach by researchers in the UK using artificial intelligence (AI) suggests that a widely available tool could help bridge this gap.

The diffusion of AI throughout the fabric of everyday life over the last few years has been astonishing, exemplified by its most salient representative, ChatGPT. This platform has begun to influence many areas of dentistry, such as how the public seeks information about oral health and its emerging role in dental education and training.

Dental practices contribute to carbon emissions through energy use, travel, procurement and waste, yet few clinicians routinely quantify this impact. Carbon calculators are often spreadsheet-based, and they can be accurate but are not always user-friendly, particularly for busy practices without sustainability training. As a result, engagement with carbon measurement has remained limited.

The current study sought to explore whether ChatGPT could be used to inform the sustainability practices of dental clinics. By using carefully structured prompts, the conversational AI tool was guided to collect basic practice data and estimate annual carbon emissions across key categories, such as staff and patient travel, energy, waste, water and procurement. The outputs were then compared with those generated by a validated Excel-based emissions calculator to assess reliability and usefulness.

The findings suggest that structured prompting is critical. When asked vague questions, the AI produced general sustainability advice with little relevance to the individual practice. However, when provided with clear questions, predefined emission factors and trusted reference material, the estimates closely aligned with those from the Excel calculator. The AI was also able to generate tailored recommendations that linked emissions hot spots to practical actions, such as reducing travel emissions, improving waste segregation and addressing energy efficiency.

For dental clinicians, the main value lies not in absolute precision but in accessibility. An AI-based approach lowers the barrier to entry, allowing practices to gain a rapid overview of where their greatest environmental impacts lie. This can support informed decision-making, team engagement and prioritisation of sustainability efforts without the need for specialist software or consultancy input.

There are, however, important limitations. Emission factors are region-specific and need adaptation to the practice location, and AI tools can still produce errors if prompts are poorly designed. Clinicians should therefore view AI-generated footprints as indicative rather than definitive.

Overall, this approach highlights how a familiar digital tool could support climate action in dentistry. With appropriate guidance and critical use, AI may help make sustainability a more routine part of everyday clinical practice rather than an added burden.

The article, titled “Prompt-driven ChatGPT carbon calculator for dental practices: Estimation and tailored improvement strategies”, was published online in the February 2026 issue of the International Dental Journal.

Topics:
Tags:
To post a reply please login or register
advertisement
advertisement