IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of efficacy of sonic irrigation (EndoActivator) versus passive ultrasonic irrigation on smear layer removal from apical third of root canal space: an in-vitro experimental study
Objectives: To compare the efficacy of Sonic Irrigation(SI) versus Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI) on removing smear layer from apical third of root canal system using dye penetration measured in millimeter square (mm2) under stereomicroscope with 25.6x magnification.
Methods: Forty six single rooted teeth were decoronated, and instrumented with ProTaper Next rotary file system upto size X3. Then, the specimens were divided into 2 groups according to the final irrigation activation technique: Group 1: Sonic Irrigation (SI-EndoActivator); Group 2: Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI). After immersion in 1% methylene blue dye, the teeth were sectioned at apical 3mm and observed under stereomicroscope (magnification X25.6) for dye penetration. Images were captured with a DSLR camera and imported to Fiji ImageJ software to measure the area of dye penetration in millimeters square. The area of dye penetration between the inner and outer canal circumference was recorded. Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare the mean difference in dye penetration measurements in the two study groups. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: The mean value of dye penetration for SI was 1.08± 1.36, whereas that for PUI was 1.72± 1.74 at the apical third (3mm) of root canal system. There was no statistically significant difference among the groups (p= 0.163) in terms of smear layer removal from apical one third of root canal system.
Conclusions: Both the irrigation technqiues (SI & PUI) were equally effective in smear layer removal from apical third of root canal system.
Methods: Forty six single rooted teeth were decoronated, and instrumented with ProTaper Next rotary file system upto size X3. Then, the specimens were divided into 2 groups according to the final irrigation activation technique: Group 1: Sonic Irrigation (SI-EndoActivator); Group 2: Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI). After immersion in 1% methylene blue dye, the teeth were sectioned at apical 3mm and observed under stereomicroscope (magnification X25.6) for dye penetration. Images were captured with a DSLR camera and imported to Fiji ImageJ software to measure the area of dye penetration in millimeters square. The area of dye penetration between the inner and outer canal circumference was recorded. Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare the mean difference in dye penetration measurements in the two study groups. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: The mean value of dye penetration for SI was 1.08± 1.36, whereas that for PUI was 1.72± 1.74 at the apical third (3mm) of root canal system. There was no statistically significant difference among the groups (p= 0.163) in terms of smear layer removal from apical one third of root canal system.
Conclusions: Both the irrigation technqiues (SI & PUI) were equally effective in smear layer removal from apical third of root canal system.