## 3 Results
### Analysis of the Second Point at 100 \(\mu\)m Subsurface from the Border of the Root Canal Lumen
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Section** & **Group** & **N** & **Mean** & **Std. Deviation** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Coronal} & Control & 10 & 28.81 & 8.34 & 13.09 & 39.52 \\ \cline{2-7}  & UN & 10 & 30.54 & 7.32 & 15.31 & 40.18 \\ \cline{2-7}  & UI & 10 & 27.51 & 6.12 & 20.26 & 36.04 \\ \cline{2-7}  & MSI & 10 & 28.98 & 6.17 & 18.67 & 41.44 \\ \cline{2-7}  & MUI & 10 & 29.15 & 5.48 & 21.02 & 39.92 \\ \cline{2-7}  & EDTA & 10 & 22.18 & 7.30 & 12.72 & 35.51 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Middle} & Control & 10 & 33.63 & 8.17 & 23.88 & 47.67 \\ \cline{2-7}  & UN & 10 & 30.27 & 5.36 & 20.26 & 35.84 \\ \cline{2-7}  & UI & 10 & 33.09 & 4.41 & 23.65 & 37.98 \\ \cline{2-7}  & MSI & 10 & 32.23 & 6.42 & 24.75 & 46.84 \\ \cline{2-7}  & MUI & 10 & 32.51 & 3.93 & 24.68 & 37.78 \\ \cline{2-7}  & EDTA & 10 & 26.48 & 6.74 & 12.32 & 34.88 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Apical} & Control & 10 & 31.48 & 5.39 & 23.10 & 39.23 \\ \cline{2-7}  & UN & 10 & 33.52 & 3.93 & 28.84 & 39.38 \\ \cline{2-7}  & UI & 10 & 31.47 & 5.39 & 22.06 & 38.33 \\ \cline{2-7}  & MSI & 10 & 35.73 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.72 & 28.09 & 58.23 \\ \cline{2-7}  & MUI & 10 & 36.39 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.43 & 31.23 & 41.39 \\ \cline{2-7}  & EDTA & 10 & 27.18 \({}^{\text{a,b}}\) & 3.92 & 21.44 & 32.97 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* UN—ultrasound device and normal saline; UL—ultrasound device and IONPs; MSI—magnetic field, endodontic needle and IONPs; MUI—magnetic field, ultrasound device, and IONPs; EDTA—ethylenediaminettetraacetic acid. One-way ANOVA, Identical superscript small letters represent significant differences between relevant groups ([PERSON] post hoc test, \(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Descriptive data of groups\({}^{\prime}\) dentine microhardness in each section at 1 mm above the midpoint of each third at the lumen surface of the root canal after using different techniques with different materials. Assessment of the Concentrations of Calcium (Ca) and Phosphorus (P) Ratio and Concentration of Iron Ion by Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (EDS)  
The root specimen was coated with a thin gold film, and a semi-quantitative analysis of elements was performed at an accelerating voltage of 15 kV. The specimens were bombarded with an electron beam, and then the detector of the device captured the emitted X-rays, and subsequently analyzed the height peak area of each element. The measured intensities were coincident with background and normalized to provide relative weight percentages of the elements [53]. When comparing the Ca/P ratios of the irrigant groups after using different protocols with no treatment of the control group, the Ca/P ratio of the IONPs irrigant group was higher than that of the EDTA group. The UN group (ultrasound device, agitated normal saline irrigant) had the lowest concentration of iron ions, followed by the MUI group (magnetic field and ultrasound device, agitated IONPs irrigant). There was a high concentration in the MSI group (magnetic field and endodontic needle). The data are shown in Table 5.