Results showed that mechanical active irrigation reduces post-operative pain .
It improved debridement , canal/isthmus cleanliness .
It also improved delivery of irrigant up to working length .
Bacterial count was more with active irrigation , though not significant .
There is no effect on long-term periapical healing .
Conclusion It may be concluded that mechanical active irrigation devices are beneficial in reducing post-operative pain and improving canal and isthmus cleanliness during Endodontics
Objective Irrigant activation has been cl aim ed to be beneficial in in vitro and clinical studies .
This systematic review aims to investigate the clinical efficiency of mechanically activated irrigants and conventional irrigation .
Evaluation of Root Canal Debridement of Human Molars Using the GentleWave System.
INTRODUCTION Studies using conventional endodontic protocol s show insufficient cleaning of root canal systems , often result ing in persistent infection and treatment failure . The GentleWave System ( GWS ; Sonendo , Inc , Laguna Hills , CA ) has been shown to result in a higher tissue dissolution rate in a study using bovine muscle . The purpose of this study was to compare the debridement efficacy of the GWS with a traditional method for cleaning root canals . METHODS Forty-five freshly extracted molars were r and omly separated into 3 treatment groups ( n = 15/group ) : group 1 , no treatment ; group 2 , conventional rotary instrumentation and needle irrigation ; and group 3 , minimal instrumentation and the GWS treatment . Roots were prepared per st and ard histologic tissue processing after hematoxylin-eosin staining ; sections were microscopically examined , and the percentage of soft tissue and debris remaining within the canals was morphometrically calculated . Images of the apical and middle regions of the roots were blindly analyzed . RESULTS Significant differences ( Welch 's t test ) were found between groups 2 and 3 in both apical ( P = .0015 ) and middle ( P = .0179 ) regions of the mesial roots of m and ibular molars and mesiobuccal roots of maxillary molars . Groups 2 and 3 result ed in cleaning 67.8 % and 97.2 % of the mesiobuccal and mesiolingual root canals of m and ibular molars and the mesiobuccal canals of maxillary molars , respectively , whereas the results were similar among groups 2 and 3 in the apical and middle regions of distal roots . Groups 2 and 3 revealed significantly less debris than group 1 ( P < .005 ) . CONCLUSIONS The GWS showed a significantly greater cleaning capacity and reduction in residual debris within the mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals of m and ibular molars and the mesiobuccal canals of maxillary molars than those cleaned conventionally
Results showed that mechanical active irrigation reduces post-operative pain .
It improved debridement , canal/isthmus cleanliness .
It also improved delivery of irrigant up to working length .
Bacterial count was more with active irrigation , though not significant .
There is no effect on long-term periapical healing .
Conclusion It may be concluded that mechanical active irrigation devices are beneficial in reducing post-operative pain and improving canal and isthmus cleanliness during Endodontics
Objective Irrigant activation has been cl aim ed to be beneficial in in vitro and clinical studies .
This systematic review aims to investigate the clinical efficiency of mechanically activated irrigants and conventional irrigation .