The efficiency of different irrigation activation techniques in the removal of calcium silicate‐based endodontic sealer from artificially created groove

Abstract

This study evaluated the removal of a calcium silicate‐based sealer (EndoSeal MTA) with needle irrigation (NI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), XP‐endo Finisher (XPF) and EDDY. A total of 56 human mandibular premolars were instrumented up to size 40.04 taper. The roots were separated longitudinally, and grooves were prepared with an ultrasonic tip at one‐half of each root canal. The grooves were covered with EndoSeal MTA and re‐attached roots were investigated based on the activation techniques applied. The results showed that significantly more material (p < 0.05) was removed in the EDDY group compared to the NI, PUI and XPF groups in the apical region. In the coronal region, no significant difference was observed between EDDY, XPF and PUI (p > 0.05), whereas all the latter were significantly more effective than NI (p < 0.05). These findings show that the removal of EndoSeal MTA can be more effective with EDDY compared to XPF, PUI and NI in the apical region.

Efficacy of different irrigation agitation systems in the removal of root canal sealers from artificial standardised grooves

“…In the current study, the digital images were scored directly visually to evaluate the residual sealer in the artificial standardised groove after the samples were divided longitudinally. Direct visual scoring was preferred because of a basic, effective and repeatability method for observers [21].…”

“…Only two researches have evaluated the removal of CSBS from simulated root canal irregularities [12,21]. One of these studies researched that the efficacy of four different chelation agents agitated with different agitation systems was evaluated in terms of the removal of CSBS from simulated root canal irregularities.…”

“…The other one of these studies evaluated the efficiency of different irrigation agitation techniques in the removal of a CSBS from an artificially created groove [21]. The same research has found that The EDDY group (sonic activation) removed significantly more CSBS from the simulated apical groove compared to UIA.…”