Efficacy of Endoactivator, CanalBrush, and passive ultrasonic irrigation in the removal of calcium hydroxide paste with iodoform and p-chlorophenol from root canals

View/ Open
Date
2020Author
Erbay Türkaydın, DilekBaştürk, Fatima Betül
Göker, S.
Tarçın, Bilge
Garip Berker, Yıldız
Öveçoǧlu, Hesna Sazak
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Erbay Türkaydın, D., Baştürk, F. B., Göker, S. Tarçın, B., Garip Berker, Y., Öveçoǧlu, H. S. (2020). Efficacy of Endoactivator, CanalBrush, and passive ultrasonic irrigation in the removal of calcium hydroxide paste with iodoform and p-chlorophenol from root canals. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice 23(9).Abstract
Aims: We evaluated and compared EndoActivator, CanalBrush, and
passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) in the removal of calcium hydroxide
and calcium hydroxide with iodoform and p‑chlorophenol paste (Calcipast
Forte) from artificial standardized grooves in the apical third of root canals.
Materials and Methods: A total of 34 mandibular premolars were prepared and
then split longitudinally. A standardized groove was prepared in the apical part of
both segments. The grooves were filled with either calcium hydroxide or Calcipast
Forte, and the segments were reassembled. CanalBrush, EndoActivator, or PUI
were used. The amount of remaining medicament was evaluated using a four‑grade
scoring system. Results: None of the irrigation methods could completely remove
the pastes from the grooves. More Calcipast Forte paste was detected compared
with calcium hydroxide (P < 0.01). PUI was the least effective method in removing
Calcipast Forte. Conclusions: It was more difficult to remove Calcipast Forte than
a water‑based calcium hydroxide paste. Aims: We evaluated and compared EndoActivator, CanalBrush, and
passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) in the removal of calcium hydroxide
and calcium hydroxide with iodoform and p‑chlorophenol paste (Calcipast
Forte) from artificial standardized grooves in the apical third of root canals.
Materials and Methods: A total of 34 mandibular premolars were prepared and
then split longitudinally. A standardized groove was prepared in the apical part of
both segments. The grooves were filled with either calcium hydroxide or Calcipast
Forte, and the segments were reassembled. CanalBrush, EndoActivator, or PUI
were used. The amount of remaining medicament was evaluated using a four‑grade
scoring system. Results: None of the irrigation methods could completely remove
the pastes from the grooves. More Calcipast Forte paste was detected compared
with calcium hydroxide (P < 0.01). PUI was the least effective method in removing
Calcipast Forte. Conclusions: It was more difficult to remove Calcipast Forte than
a water‑based calcium hydroxide paste.