English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Pro

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents AI Discovery search usage as a premium feature

AI Discovery

Presents AI Discovery explain and summary usage as a premium feature

Content Analysis

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

1500 Top-up

3000 Top-up

Zendy Basic

2500 Top-up

Zendy Unlimited

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Aim: Aim of this study was to compare the removal of smear layer and organic debris within the tooth canal among conventional needle irrigation, EndoVac and Endoactivator.Methodology: Eighty single-rooted extracted human teeth were prepared with rotary NiTi instrumentation and randomly separated into 4 groups. Twenty teeth were used as positive control (Group 1), irrigated with only saline. Teeth assigned to Group 2 (n = 20) received irrigation with a conventional syringe and a 30-gauge needle (NaviTip, Ultradent, South Jordan, UT); samples in Group 3 (n = 20) were rinsed with an irrigation device based on apical negative pressure (EndoVac, Discus Dental, Culver City, CA) and teeth in Group 4 (n = 20) were treated with a sonic irrigation system (EndoActivator, Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK, USA). The amount of residual smear layer and debris was evaluated under a scanning electron microscope, and a semi-quantitative score was assigned to each root at the coronal, middle and apical thirds; the chi-square test was used to compare the results of the S.E.M. analysis.Results: EndoActivator performed the best cleansing for both smear layer and organic debris in all root canal thirds, followed by EndoVac and conventional irrigation (p > 0.001). EndoVac and conventional irrigation showed better cleaning in the coronal area, whereas EndoActivator performed an homogeneous cleansing at all levels.Conclusions: The EndoVac system and the EndoActivator system demonstrated significantly more efficacy in cleansing root canal walls than conventional needle irrigation

giornale italiano di endodonzia

Efficacy of three different irrigation techniques in the removal of smear layer and organic debris from root canal wall: a scanning electron microscope study