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 ) .
Root canal debridement efficacy of different final irrigation protocols.
AIM To compare the smear layer and debris removal effectiveness of four root canal irrigation protocol s as well as their effectiveness in removing remaining soft tissues in curved root canals . METHODOLOGY The mesiobuccal and mesial root canals of 107 extracted human maxillary and m and ibular molars were instrumented using Mtwo rotary NiTi instruments then r and omly divided into four groups according to a final rinse protocol : Group 1 ( n = 28 ) - manual agitation of 1 % NaOCl and 15 % EDTA ; Group 2 ( n = 26 ) - CanalBrush agitation of 1 % NaOCl and 15 % EDTA ; Group 3 ( n = 26 ) - 3 % H(2 ) O(2 ) alternated with 1 % NaOCl ; Group 4 ( n = 27 ) - passive ultrasonic agitation of 1 % NaOCl and 15 % EDTA . All irrigation protocol s were performed in a closed system . Eleven roots per group were prepared and histologically stained ( H&E ) to assess percentage of remaining pulpal tissues in the apical thirds . The remaining specimens were split longitudinally and examined under scanning electron microscope at ×2000 magnification to assess smear layer and debris removal . Image Pro Plus 6.0 software was used to analyse smear layer and remaining pulp tissue . Debris presence was scored by two blinded investigators using a five-point scale . Data were analysed using Univariate analysis of variance ( GenStat 13 , α = 0.05 ) . RESULTS CanalBrush and passive ultrasonic irrigation were equally effective with significantly less smear layer and debris than manual agitation and H(2 ) O(2 ) alternated with NaOCl ( P < 0.05 ) . The H(2 ) O(2 ) alternated with NaOCl protocol was significantly more effective in removing pulp tissue remnants in the apical level than manual agitation ( P = 0.009 ) and passive ultrasonic irrigation ( P = 0.01 ) . CONCLUSIONS CanalBrush was as effective as passive ultrasonic irrigation in smear layer and debris removal . Alternating H(2 ) O(2 ) with NaOCl was effective in removing soft tissues from root canal complexities . Further studies are required to evaluate effectiveness of this regimen taking into account irrigant volume differences and effect of root canal system configuration
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 ) .