Piyush Oswal, Santosh S. Martande, Suresh Shenvi. To Evaluate the Effcacy of New Brush Covered Irrigation Needle in Removing Root Canal Debris In Vitro: A Scanning Electron Micros- copy Study. Int J Dentistry Oral Sci. 2020;7(12):1211-1215. 1211 OPEN ACCESS https://scidoc.org/IJDOS.php To Evaluate the Effcacy of New Brush Covered Irrigation Needle in Removing Root Canal Debris In Vitro: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Study Research Article Piyush Oswal 1 , Santosh S. Martande 2* , Suresh Shenvi 3 1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. D Y Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune, 400 018, Maharashtra, India. 2 Department of Periodontology, Dr. D Y Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune, 400 018, Maharashtra, India. 3 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, KLE VK Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum, KAHER, Karnataka, India. International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Science (IJDOS) ISSN: 2377-8075 *Corresponding Author: Dr. Santosh S. Martande MDS, Department of Periodontology, Dr. D Y Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune, 400 018, Maharashtra, India. Tel: 9890353072 E-mail: santoshmartande@gmail.com Received: November 18, 2020 Accepted: December 15, 2020 Published: December 16, 2020 Citation: Piyush Oswal, Santosh S. Martande, Suresh Shenvi. To Evaluate the Effcacy of New Brush Covered Irrigation Needle in Removing Root Canal Debris In Vitro: A Scan- ning Electron Microscopy Study Int J Dentistry Oral Sci. 2020;7(12):1211-1215. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.19070/2377-8075-20000239 Copyright: Santosh S. Martande © 2020. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Introduction The core of endodontic instrumentation lies in the cleaning, shaping and canal preparation. It is contemplated as an impor- tant step as it removes the vital and necrotic pulp which contains the microfora that can cause failure of the endodontic treatment [1, 2]. Furthermore, the debris that contains the chips of dentin, other organic and inorganic content block the canals for proper fow of sealer leading to a poor obturation. Several studies have been conducted and regardthat the debris should be completely removed for a successful endodontic treatment. For this purpose, the canals are thoroughly instrumented with both hand and rotary instruments in an effort to remove the debris totally [3, 4]. Literature has multiple evidences which state that mechanical instrumentation alone cannot remove the debris totally, hence, chemical methods have also been advocated for successful re- moval of debris and disinfection of the canals [5]. Even if the debris has been successfully removed, the instrumented canal walls leave a 1 to 2 µthin layer called as smear layer which clogs the dentinal tubules, thus preventing the fow of sealer [6]. The use of rotary instruments also leaves certain areas such as isth- muses, cul-de-sacs and canal fns inaccessible 7. 1 to 6 % NaOCl and 17% EDTA are considered to be the best intracanal irrigants that are used as an adjunct to mechanical debridement to remove Abstract Objective: The main purpose of the study was to compare the effcacy of NaviTip and NaviTip FX in debriding the walls of the canals using a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). The secondary purpose of the study was to evaluate if use of 17 % EDTA along with 5.25% NaOCl had an additional effect in root canal debridement. Material and Methods: Access cavity preparations were performed in 40 extracted incisor teeth. All the teeth were randomly allotted to any of 4 groups consisting of 10 teeth- Group 1: Irrigation with 1ml of 5.25% NaOCl with NaviTip needle after each instrumentation; Group 2: Irrigation with 1ml of 5.25% NaOCl using NaviTip FX with a manual left and right rotary motion combined with up and down motions, and a brushing action on dentin walls after each instrumentation; Group 3: Irrigation with 1ml of 5.25% NaOCl followed by 1ml of 17%EDTA with NaviTip needle after each instrumentation; Group 4: Irrigation with 1ml of 5.25% NaOCl followed by 1ml of 17%EDTA using NaviTip FX with a manual left and right rotary motion combined with up and down motion, and a brushing action on dentin walls after each instrumentation. Later each selected sample was further split horizontally into three halves as coronal (10mm from apex), middle (5mm from apex) and apical (1mm from apex) thirds and treated with sputter-coated withgold using fne-coat ion sputter JFC-1100. Samples were analyzedfnally by SEM analysis. Result: All the groups showed signifcantly lesser smear layer at 10mm when compared to 5mm and 1mm. Further, it signifes that NaviTip FX (Group 4) when used along with 5.25% NaOCL and 17% EDTA removed more debris as compared to Group 1 and 2 at 10mmand 5mm; and removed more debris at 1mm compared to Group 3. Conclusion: Navi Tip could be replaced by Navi Tip FX for the purpose of cleaning and removal of smear layer. EDTA, which is considered as one of the best irrigants for removal dentinal debris may be ineffective in some narrower canals and could be adjuncted with manual irrigation devices such as Navi Tip FX to improve its action. Keywords: Root Canal Debridement; Root Canal Irrigation; 5.25% NaOCl; 17% EDTA; Scanning Electron Microscopy.