## 3 Results
### Analysis of the Second Point at 100 \(\mu\)m Subsurface from the Border of the Root Canal Lumen  
A significant difference (\(p<0.05\)) between groups was observed only in the coronal region. The lowest mean value of the dentin microhardness test was observed in the EDTA group, followed by the MSI group (magnetic field and endodontic needle, agitated with IONPs irrigant). In contrast, the highest mean values were observed in the UI group \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Section** & **Group** & **N** & **Mean** & **Std. Deviation** & **Minimum** & **Maximum** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Coronal} & Control & 10 & 39.33 & 8.18 & 26.17 & 48.93 \\ \cline{2-7}  & UN & 10 & 32.35 & 7.83 & 21.65 & 44.88 \\ \cline{2-7}  & UI & 10 & 30.15 & 7.68 & 18.55 & 42.57 \\ \cline{2-7}  & MSI & 10 & 28.97 & 7.90 & 10.60 & 37.98 \\ \cline{2-7}  & MUI & 10 & 30.02 & 6.98 & 22.51 & 42.66 \\ \cline{2-7}  & EDTA & 10 & 29.03 & 10.44 & 11.25 & 44.66 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Middle} & Control & 10 & 39.24 & 4.88 & 30.73 & 47.29 \\ \cline{2-7}  & UN & 10 & 33.60 & 6.41 & 22.52 & 43.81 \\ \cline{2-7}  & UI & 10 & 33.55 & 9.18 & 15.00 & 45.36 \\ \cline{2-7}  & MSI & 10 & 33.60 & 6.40 & 20.05 & 43.81 \\ \cline{2-7}  & MUI & 10 & 35.31 & 7.93 & 25.00 & 50.77 \\ \cline{2-7}  & EDTA & 10 & 30.82 & 6.22 & 22.74 & 43.60 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Apical} & Control & 10 & 37.75 & 6.75 & 27.13 & 51.51 \\ \cline{2-7}  & UN & 10 & 34.55 & 8.39 & 16.30 & 44.06 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & UI & 10 & 36.99 & 8.15 & 25.00 & 52.83 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & MSI & 10 & 35.69 & 6.19 & 26.56 & 41.78 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & MUI & 10 & 31.68 & 4.49 & 23.51 & 39.67 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & EDTA & 10 & 31.68 & 6.71 & 24.56 & 47.76 \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
UN—ultrasound device and normal saline; UI—ultrasound device and IONPs; MSI—magnetic field, endodontic needle and IONPs; MUI—magnetic field, ultrasound device, and IONPs; EDTA—ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between relevant groups ([PERSON] post hoc test, \(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive data of groups’ dentine microhardness in each section at the depth of 50 \(\mu\)m subsurface from the root canal lumen after using different techniques with different materials. (ultrasound device, agitated IONPS irrigant), UN group (ultrasound device, agitated normal saline irrigant), and MUI group (magnetic field and ultrasound device, agitated IONPs irrigant). All groups had lower microhardness values than the control at 100 \(\upmu\)m and higher than the EDTA 17% group, as shown in Table 2.  
The mean value was higher at a depth of 100 \(\upmu\)m than at 50 \(\upmu\)m. However, all groups, at both the first 50 \(\upmu\)m point and the second 100 \(\upmu\)m point subsurface from the border of the root canal lumen showed lower mean values compared to the control group, but higher values than the EDTA group. The data are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Analysis of the Third Point at 1 mm Above the Midpoint of Each Third of the Root Section at the Lumen Surface  
A significant difference (\(p<0.05\)) between groups was only observed in the apical section. The lowest mean dentin microhardness value was observed in the EDTA group. In contrast, the MUI group (magnetic field and ultrasound device, agitated IONPs irrigant) showed a higher mean value than the MSI group (magnetic field and endodontic needle, agitated IONPs irrigant), followed by the UN group (ultrasound device, agitated normal saline irrigant). No significant effect was observed in the UI group (ultrasound device, an agitated IONPS irrigant). However, all groups except for the EDTA group had higher mean values than the control group. The data are shown in Table 3. Typically, the MUI group (magnetic field and ultrasound device, agitated IONPs irrigant) showed a higher mean