Comparison of the Efficacy of CanalBrush, EndoActivator, and Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation on the Removal of Triple Antibiotic Paste from Root Canal Walls: An Study.

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of CanalBrush (CB), EndoActivator (EA), and Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI) on the removal of triple antibiotic paste (TAP) from root canal walls.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six extracted human single-rooted teeth were prepared using ProTaper Universal rotary files (DentsplyMaillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) up to size F5. The root canals were filled with TAP, and after 21 days, roots were randomly assigned to three groups ( = 10) according to irrigation regimens used: CB, EA, and PUI. In three teeth, TAP was not removed (positive controls), and the other three teeth were not filled with TAP (negative controls). The roots were sectioned, and the amount of TAP remaining was evaluated at the mesial halves of each tooth at ×30 magnification under a stereomicroscope using a 4-grade scoring system. Data were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests.

RESULTS

There were significant differences among the experimental groups according to the different parts of the root canals ( < 0.05). At the apical and middle third, EA and PUI groups removed more TAP than CB group; however, there was a statistically significant difference only between CB and PUI groups (<0.01 at apical third and <0.05 at middle third). At the coronal third, there was no statistically significant difference between all the three groups ( > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

PUI led to superior results compared to CB in the middle and apical thirds. There was no significant difference between EA and PUI techniques.