TY - JOUR AU - Di Nardo, Dario AU - Gambarini, Gianluca AU - Miccoli, Gabriele AU - Di Carlo, Stefano AU - Iannarilli, Giulia AU - Lauria, Greta AU - Seracchiani, Marco AU - Khrenova, Tatyana AU - Bossù, Maurizio AU - Testarelli, Luca PY - 2020/06/04 Y2 - 2024/03/28 TI - Sonic vs Ultrasonic activation of sodium hypoclorite for root canal treatments. In vitro assessment of debris removal from main and lateral canals JF - Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia JA - G Ital Endodon VL - 34 IS - 1 SE - Original Articles DO - 10.32067/GIE.2020.34.01.12 UR - https://www.giornaleitalianoendodonzia.it/gie/article/view/101 SP - AB - <p lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Aim:</strong> 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.</span></span></p><p lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Methodology:</strong> 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.</span></span></p><p lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Results:</strong> 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&lt;0,05). No tested device was able to remove all debris from accessory canals.</span></span></p><p lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; line-height: 200%;" align="JUSTIFY"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> The cordless ultrasonic handpiece Ultra X used with maximum power showed significantly greater efficacy in cleaning accessory canals when compared to the sonic EndoActivator.</span></span></p> ER -