Skip to content

Comparing Irrigation Techniques for Root Canal Treatment: A Study on Pain Relief and Cleaning Effectiveness of Different Root Canal Irrigants in Adult Teeth with Dead Pulp

Comparative Evaluation of the Depth of Penetration and Postoperative Pain Associated with the Use of Standard Irrigation Protocol and Continuous Chelation Using HEBP with and Without the Use of Ultrasonic Activation in the Endodontic Treatment of Adult Permanent Teeth with Necrotic Pulp A Randomized Controlled Trial - NIL

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
CTRI
Registry ID
CTRI/2025/08/092627
Enrollment
75
Registered
2025-08-07
Start date
Unknown
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-08-18

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: K041- Necrosis of pulp

Interventions

Intervention1: Continuous chelation using HEBP: Canal irrigation with 9 percent HEBP 3 percent NaOCl after the use of each file Control Intervention1: Standard Irrigation with EDTA during Root canal t

Sponsors

Dr. Krishma Mehra
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Adult permanent asymptomatic teeth with necrotic pulp requiring non surgical endodontic treatment Teeth whose non-vitality was confirmed by an electric pulp tester (EPT) and thermal sensitivity testing Feasibility of isolating the tooth with a rubber dam Vertucci Type I and Type IV root canal anatomy Participants with the ability to understand the consent forms and the pain record scales

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Nonvital tooth with periapical lesion Patients with spontaneous preoperative pain Patients who had taken Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or any other analgesic for pain within the last 4 8 h Teeth with calcified root canals and complex root canal anatomy. Teeth with open apices, and resorbed apex Periodontally compromised teeth The patient who is not willing to give consent for the study Patients with known allergies to the materials used in the study

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Outcome will be assessed on clinical evaluation and radiographic assessmentTimepoint: 6 hours and 48 hours

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Outcome will be assessed on clinical evaluation and radiographic assessmentTimepoint: During treatment

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Munish Goel

Himachal Dental College and Hospital

goelmuni2012@gmail.com9816034034

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026