IATs improve intracanal cleanliness across a substantial portion of the canal , and therefore , their use is recommended throughout root canal preparation .
AIMS To establish whether irrigant activation techniques ( IATs ) result in greater intracanal smear layer and debris removal than conventional needle irrigation ( CNI ) .
Efficacy of four different irrigation techniques combined with 60°C 3% sodium hypochlorite and 17% EDTA in smear layer removal
Background Efforts to improve the efficacy of smear layer removal by applying irrigant activation at the final irrigation or by elevating the temperature of the irrigant have been reported . However , the combination of such activation protocol s with 60 ° C 3 % sodium hypochlorite ( NaOCl ) has seldom been mentioned . The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy in smear layer removal of four different irrigation techniques combined with 60 ° C 3 % NaOCl and 17 % EDTA . Methods Fifty single-rooted teeth were r and omly divided into five groups ( n = 10 ) according to the irrigant agitation protocol s used during chemomechanical preparation(Dentsply Maillefer , Ballaigues , Switzerl and ): a side-vented needle group , a ultrasonic irrigation ( UI ) group , a NaviTip FX group , an EndoActivator group , and a control group ( no agitation ) . After each instrumentation , the root canals were irrigated with 1 mL of 3 % NaOCl at 60 ° C for 1 minute , and after the whole instrumentation , the root canals were rinsed with 1 mL of 17 % EDTA for 1 minute . Both NaOCl and EDTA were activated with one of the five irrigation protocol s. The efficacy of smear layer removal was scored at the apical , middle and coronal thirds . The Data were statistically analyzed using SAS version 9.2 for Windows ( rank sum test for a r and omised block design and ANOVA ) . Results No significant differences among the NaviTip FX group , EndoActivator group and control groups , and each of these groups showed a lower score than that of UI group ( P < 0.05 ) . Within each group , all three thirds were ranked in the following order : coronal > middle > apical ( P < 0.05 ) . In the coronal third , the NaviTip FX group was better than UI group . In the middle and apical third , the differences were not significant among any of the groups . Conclusions Even without any activation , the combination of 60 ° C 3 % NaOCl and 17 % EDTA  could remove the smear layer effectively , similar to NaviTip FX or EndoActivator , and these three protocol s were more effective than UI . However , regardless of different types of irrigation technique applied , complete removal of the smear layer was not achieved , particularly in the apical third
IATs improve intracanal cleanliness across a substantial portion of the canal , and therefore , their use is recommended throughout root canal preparation .
AIMS To establish whether irrigant activation techniques ( IATs ) result in greater intracanal smear layer and debris removal than conventional needle irrigation ( CNI ) .