Logo-joddd
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2021;15(3): 157-162.
doi: 10.34172/joddd.2021.027
PMID: 34712405
PMCID: PMC8538143
Scopus ID: 85118625655
  Abstract View: 767
  PDF Download: 440
  Full Text View: 259

Clinical Dentistry

Original Article

Comparison of the efficacy of sonic irrigation and conventional syringe irrigation in the removal of curcumin and triple antibiotic paste from root canals

Mehmet Adigüzel 1 ORCID logo, Koray Yilmaz 1* ORCID logo, İsmail İlker Pamukçu 1

1 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hatay Mustafa Kemal University, Hatay, Turkey
*Corresponding Author: *Corresponding author: Koray Yilmaz, Email: , Email: koray1903@hotmail.com

Abstract

Background. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of sonic irrigation and conventional syringe irrigation (CSI) in terms of curcumin (CUR) and triple antibiotic paste (TAP) removal from a standardized groove artificially created in root canals.

Methods. The root canals of 72 anterior maxillary teeth were prepared using the Reciproc system to size R50. The teeth were split longitudinally, and a standardized groove was created in the apical region of one root half. The standardized grooves were filled with CUR or TAP with the exclusion of six teeth that served as the negative control group, and then the root halves were reassembled. The teeth were divided into two subgroups according to the irrigation protocols used: sonic activation with EndoActivator (EA) or CSI (n=15). After the removal of the medicament, the residual medicament was assessed under a stereomicroscope. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analyses (P = 0.05).

Results. The EA sonic activation method was significantly more efficient in removing CUR medicament from the root canals. Considering the medicament types, more CUR than TAP was removed from the root canals using both CSI and the EA (sonic activation) system (P<0.05).

Conclusion. As compared with CSI, the EA was not significantly more efficient in removing TAP, but it was significantly more effective than CSI in removing CUR.




First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 768

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 440

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


Full Text View: 259

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Submitted: 02 Dec 2020
Accepted: 15 Apr 2021
ePublished: 25 Aug 2021
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)