Sonic vs Ultrasonic activation of sodium hypoclorite for root canal treatments. In vitro assessment of debris removal from main and lateral canals

  • Dario Di Nardo | dario.dinardo@uniroma1.it Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
  • Gianluca Gambarini Department of oral and Maxillo-facial sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
  • Gabriele Miccoli Department of oral and Maxillo-facial sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
  • Stefano Di Carlo Department of oral and Maxillo-facial sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
  • Giulia Iannarilli Department of oral and Maxillo-facial sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
  • Greta Lauria Department of oral and Maxillo-facial sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
  • Marco Seracchiani Department of oral and Maxillo-facial sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
  • Tatyana Khrenova Department of oral and Maxillo-facial sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
  • Maurizio Bossù Department of oral and Maxillo-facial sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
  • Luca Testarelli Department of oral and Maxillo-facial sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.

Abstract

Aim: Aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of two different sonic and ultrasonic devices in the elimination of debris from artificial main and accessory canals.

Methodology: Two different irrigant activator devices were tested: the sonic handpiece EndoActivator (Dentsply Maillefer, Baillagues, Switzerland) and the ultrasonic handpiece Ultra X (Eighteeth, Changzhou Sifary Medical Technology Co., Ltd, Changzhou City, China). 18 artificial root canals were tested for each group: canals and lateral canals were embedded in a transparent resin model. Canals were filled with organic paste to simulate the organic pulp tissues. With both devices, irrigation was performed using 5% sodium hypoclorite and two activation times of 30 seconds each. Sodium hypochlorite was replaced every 30 seconds. After a photographic exam, debris removal was evaluated by a software and assessed in terms of percentage of cleaned canal. Means and standard deviations were calculated and data were statistically analyzed with the Anova test.

Results: Under the same experimental conditions (same canal, time and irrigant), both sonic and ultrasonic devices completely cleaned the main canal. On the contrary, a statistically significant difference was noted in the debridement of lateral canals, with ultrasonic device removing more debris than the sonic one (p<0,05). No tested device was able to remove all debris from accessory canals.

Conclusions: The cordless ultrasonic handpiece Ultra X used with maximum power showed significantly greater efficacy in cleaning accessory canals when compared to the sonic EndoActivator.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Published
2020-06-04
Info
Issue
Section
Original Articles
Keywords:
Root canal irrigation, Sodium hypoclorite, sonic activation, ultrasonic activation, accessory canals
Statistics
  • Abstract views: 104

  • PDF: 432
How to Cite
Di Nardo, D., Gambarini, G., Miccoli, G., Di Carlo, S., Iannarilli, G., Lauria, G., Seracchiani, M., Khrenova, T., Bossù, M., & Testarelli, L. (2020). Sonic vs Ultrasonic activation of sodium hypoclorite for root canal treatments. In vitro assessment of debris removal from main and lateral canals. Giornale Italiano Di Endodonzia, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.32067/GIE.2020.34.01.12