| Literature DB >> 35653310 |
Wonjoon Moon1, Shin Hye Chung1, Juhea Chang2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of three sonic irrigation systems for removal of calcium hydroxide dressing from the apical root canal.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35653310 PMCID: PMC9162323 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268791
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Irrigation systems used in the study.
| Irrigation systems | Tip characteristics | Tip sizes | Frequency | Irrigation methods [ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Needle irrigation | Side-vented needle (NaviTip, Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT, USA) | 30G; straight | N/A | Canals were irrigated using a total of 10 mL of NaOCl for 60 seconds |
| EndoActivator (Dentsply Maillefer, Santa Barbara, CA, USA) | Sonic irrigation | Flexible, non-cutting polymer tip (Dentsply Maillefer, Santa Barbara, CA, USA) | #15/.02 | 166 Hz (10,000 cpm) | Canals were irrigated using a total of 10 mL of NaOCl, applying the device three times for 20 seconds each |
| EQ-S (Meta Systems, Seongnam, Korea) | Sonic irrigation | Flexible, non-cutting polymer tip (Meta Systems, Seongnam, Korea) | #15/.02 | 217 Hz (13,000 cpm) | Same as in EndoActivator |
| Vibringe (Cavex, Haarlem, Netherlands) | Sonic irrigation | Side-vented needle (NaviTip, Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT, USA) | 30G; straight | 150 Hz | Same as in Control |
Median removal percentages of intracanal medication.
| Groups | Median Removal Percentage (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Root canal curvatures | |||
| Straight | Moderate | Severe | |
| Group 1 Control | 99.95 [99.61, 100] A | 99.88 [94.55, 99.92] AB | 80.17 [71.05, 92.66] A |
| Group 2 Endoactivator | 100 [99.93, 100] A | 99.91 [99.51, 99.99] A | 99.53 [90.94, 99.84] BC |
| Group 3 EQ-S | 100 [97.77, 100] A | 99.95 [99.59, 100] A | 99.95 [99.38, 100] C |
| Group 4 Vibringe | 100 [99.19, 100] A | 96.19 [89.10, 99.32] B | 92.09 [86.21, 96.17] AB |
Values with the same subscripts are not significantly different compared within columns (P > 0.05)
Interquartile ranges [first quartile, third quartile] are shown in parentheses.
Median remaining volumes of intracanal medication.
| Groups | Median Remaining Volume (103mm3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Root canal curvatures | |||
| Straight | Moderate | Severe | |
| Group 1 Control | 0.83 [0, 1.84] A | 1.34 [0.40, 63.16] A | 94.60 [47.32, 156.86] A |
| Group 2 Endoactivator | 0 [0, 0.12] A | 0.42 [0.05, 1.91] A | 3.18 [1.27, 30.08] BC |
| Group 3 EQ-S | 0 [0, 9.99] A | 0.36 [0, 2.30] A | 0.72 [0, 1.95] C |
| Group 4 Vibringe | 0 [0, 2.44] A | 12.96 [3.18, 40.92] A | 26.38 [17.84, 81.99] AB |
Values with the same subscripts are not significantly different when compared within columns (P > 0.05)
Interquartile ranges [first quartile, third quartile] are shown in parentheses.
Fig 1Removal efficacy of intracanal medication in different curvatures and devices.
(a) Removal percentage of intracanal medication. (b) Remaining volume of intracanal medication. *: Values are significantly different within the same irrigation devices (p < 0.05).
Fig 2Cross-sectional micro-CT images at 2 mm from the apical constriction.
The white mass inside the wall indicates remaining intracanal medication.
Fig 33D demonstration of intracanal medication within the severe curvatures after filling and after removal by different irrigation systems.
Intracanal medication is designated in blue, and the region of interest (3 mm from the apical constriction) is shown in dashed lines.
Fig 4Light-coupled tracking of the operating irrigation tips in free-range and inside the artificial block with a curved (10°) canal.
Fig 5Maximum oscillation widths of the light-coupled tips.
(a) Maximum oscillation widths outside the canal. (b) Maximum oscillation widths inside the artificial block with a curved (10°) canal. *: Values are significantly different among the irrigation devices (p < 0.05).