An in vitro comparison study to quantitate the debridement ability of hand, sonic, and ultrasonic instrumentation

Impacts of Conservative Endodontic Cavity on Root Canal Instrumentation Efficacy and Resistance to Fracture Assessed in Incisors, Premolars, and Molars

“…The most important features of micro-CT are its non-destructive nature and its quantitative accuracy, compared to alternative assessment methods that require sectioning of the specimens (33,51,52,54,(63)(64)(65). Although CBCT is used clinically as reference for plotting CEC for treated teeth (111), its lower resolution (62) suggested it would be less suitable than micro-CT for assessing the efficacy of canal instrumentation and the volume of dentin removed in this study.…”

“…This method is fraught with artifacts, including contamination and loss of debris during the sectioning process (33,51,52,54,(63)(64)(65). Because the imaging of teeth with micro-CT allows three-dimensional replication of the root canal system with different experimental steps (pre-, intra-and post-operative), it supports computer-aided measurements of quantitative differences between those images.…”

A Quantitative Assessment of Efficacy of Various Calcium Hydroxide Removal Techniques

“…It has been reported that NaOCl and NaOCl ϩ EDTA effectively removed all or most of the Ca(OH) 2 (14,15). Conversely, other studies have found that Ca(OH) 2 removal was difficult or incompletely removed (16,17).…”

Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of passive sonic activation and passive ultrasonic activation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals

“…Several studies have shown that ultrasonically or sonically prepared teeth have significantly cleaner canals than teeth prepared by hand instrumentation (9)(10)(11). Other studies have failed to demonstrate the superiority of ultrasonics or sonics as a primary instrumentation technique (12)(13)(14)(15)(16).…”