Debris removal from artificial grooves using different endodontic irrigation activation techniques: ex vivo

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the debris removal efficiency of different irrigation activation techniques from artificially formed endodontic grooves. Materials and Method: Crowns of twenty maxillary incisor teeth were removed and the root canals were prepared. Specimens were embed...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Acta odontologica turcica 2016-12, Vol.34 (1), p.14-18
Hauptverfasser: Mügem Aslı Ekici, Bağdagül Helvacıoğlu Kıvanç, Adil Ekici, Özgür Uzun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the debris removal efficiency of different irrigation activation techniques from artificially formed endodontic grooves. Materials and Method: Crowns of twenty maxillary incisor teeth were removed and the root canals were prepared. Specimens were embedded in acrylic resin and placed into teflon molds. Acrylic resin blocks were removed from the molds and split longitudinally into equal two halves. A standardized artificial groove (4 mm x 0.2 mm x 0.5 mm) was prepared at 2 mm distance from the apex and filled with dentinal debris. Acrylic resin blocks were placed into the teflon mold again and compressed. Four different irrigation activation techniques; Manual Dynamic Irrigation (MDI), Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI), Sonic Irrigation (SI) and Apical Negative Pressure Irrigation (ANPI) were used for debris removal. Conventional Irrigation (CI) was applied as control. For standardization, each specimen was cleaned and reused (n=20). Before and after irrigation, images of the grooves were taken by using an operating microscope at x30 magnification. Amount of remaining debris was evaluated by using a scoring system. Data were analyzed by using Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=0.05). Results: There were statistically significant differences between the experimental groups (p
ISSN:2147-690X
DOI:10.17214/gaziaot.273922