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

General Dental Council publishes assessment on use of AI in dentistry

A General Dental Council report has called for UK-specific research to address the clinical, regulatory and ethical considerations posed by the use of artificial intelligence in dental settings. (Image: greenbutterfly/Adobe Stock)

Thu. 4 September 2025

save

LONDON, England: The UK’s General Dental Council has emphasised its commitment to understanding and monitoring the evolving impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the delivery of oral care. In August, the national dental regulator published a rapid evidence assessment report on how the technology is being used in dental services worldwide, highlighting both the potential benefits it offers clinicians and patients as well as the challenges it poses.

The assessment, carried out by the Peninsula Dental School at the University of Plymouth, analysed 45 international studies published since 2020. Most of the studies were undertaken by researchers in China and the US, but no UK-based studies were identified, underlining the need for UK-specific research. 

The use of AI in dentistry was found to fall largely into three categories: robotics in implant surgery, deep learning for caries detection and remote monitoring, and supervised machine learning in paediatric dentistry. These applications were found to show promise in improving accuracy, supporting patient outcomes and widening access to remote care. 

However, the report also draws attention to a range of clinical and practical challenges. In implant surgery, for example, both poor bone quality and very dense bone, as well as limited mouth opening, can affect the accuracy and usability of robotic systems. Patient movement during procedures may also increase the risk of deviation from planned implant placement, requiring careful stabilisation. Robotic systems demand significant investment and training. Dynamic navigation, for example, involves a demanding learning process and heavy equipment that requires considerable hand–eye coordination.

“While some patients welcomed robotics-assisted surgery, others experienced increased anxiety in the presence of complex machinery.”

Diagnostic risks were also noted in the studies included. Studies found that some AI platforms produced false negative results, particularly for subtle findings such as voids or early caries. This finding reinforces the importance of viewing AI as a support tool rather than as a replacement for clinical judgment. 

Patient responses to the use of AI in their care were mixed. The report explained that, while some patients welcomed robotics-assisted surgery, others experienced increased anxiety in the presence of complex machinery. Also, compliance with AI-driven monitoring tools tended to decline over time, and the studies suggested that this was because repetitive automated messages or the frequency of scans may cause patients to disengage. In addition, user error when capturing intra-oral photographs affected the reliability of monitoring. 

The report found little evidence on issues concerning equality, diversity and inclusion or ethical and data protection, despite the generation of large volumes of additional patient data by AI-based systems. The authors noted that research aimed specifically at the use of AI in dentistry in the UK could “ensure that aspects such as equality, diversity and inclusion, and data protection, were properly considered in regard to the UK’s cultural and social context”. 

Overall, the report concluded that, while AI has clear potential to enhance dental services, its use in daily dental practice remains limited. It called for future UK-specific research to address clinical, regulatory and ethical considerations, focusing particularly on patient safety and diverse patient needs. 

The report, titled Artificial Intelligence and Dental Service Provision: A Rapid Evidence Assessment, can be accessed here 

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