Journal of Current Surgery, ISSN 1927-1298 print, 1927-1301 online, Open Access
Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, J Curr Surg and Elmer Press Inc
Journal website http://www.currentsurgery.org

Original Article

Volume 4, Number 3, September 2014, pages 70-75

Comparison of the Efficacies of Debris Removal With Four Different Irrigation Techniques

Figure

Figure 1.
Figure 1. The amount of debris remaining in each root canal lumen area.

Tables

Table 1. Amounts of Remaining Debris in the Experimental Groups
 
Debris (%)NISAFPUIEVP value
Mean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SDMean ± SD
One-way ANOVA test. **P < 0.01. NI: needle irrigation; SAF: self-adjusting file; PUI: passive ultrasonic irrigation; EV: EndoVac.
1 mm18.11 ± 5.077.12 ± 1.5912.71 ± 1.314.42 ± 0.710.001**
3 mm9.61 ± 2.485.22 ± 1.378.42 ± 1.002.61 ± 0.460.001**
Mean13.86 ± 3.506.17 ± 1.3810.56 ± 1.073.51 ± 0.450.001**

 

Table 2. Amounts of Remaining Debris at 1 and 3 mm From the Apex
 
Debris (%)Mean ± SDP value
Student’s t-test. **P < 0.01.
1 mm10.59 ± 5.960.001**
3 mm6.46 ± 3.14