Evaluation of Residual Root Canal Sealer Removal Efficacy of Different Irrigation Activation Techniques by Confocal Laser Microscopy Analysis

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorid0000-0003-0607-6703
dc.authorid0000-0003-4252-9538
dc.authorid0000-0002-1773-9114
dc.authorid0000-0002-7532-4785
dc.contributor.authorAydin, Zeliha Ugur
dc.contributor.authorAltunbas, Demet
dc.contributor.authorAkdere, Sevim Kosumcu
dc.contributor.authorMeseci, Buera
dc.contributor.authorCankaya, Tulin Dogan
dc.date.accessioned2026-01-24T12:29:27Z
dc.date.available2026-01-24T12:29:27Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.departmentAlanya Alaaddin Keykubat Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractObjective: The purpose of this study was to use confocal laser microscopy analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of conventional needle irrigation (CNI), EndoActivator (EA), and EDDY during endodontic retreatment. Methods: This study included 45 maxillary incisor teeth with a single root and canal. Root canals were prepared with ProTaper Universal files (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and obturated with labeled sealer mixed with 0.1% Rhodamine B and gutta percha according to single cone techniques. Initial root canal filling material was removed using ProTaper Universal Retreatment files and F4 files. Teeth randomly were divided into 3 groups (n = 15) depending on the activation technique: CNI, EA (Dentsply, Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK), and EDDY (VDW, Munich, Germany). Confocal laser microscopy was used to evaluate the penetration area, depth, and percentage of the residual sealer in the apical, middle, and coronal sections after irrigation activation. Results: In all sections, the EDDY group had a lower penetration area of residual sealer than the CNI group (P< .05). In comparison to the coronal section, the penetration percentage of the CNI and EA groups was lower in the apical section (P< .05). In the CNI group, the penetration depth was higher at the coronal section than at the apical and middle sections (P< .05), and it was higher at the coronal section than at the apical section. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, none of the activation systems tested could completely remove the residual sealer. However, the lowest residual sealer was seen after using EA and EDDY.
dc.identifier.doi10.33808/clinexphealthsci.871991
dc.identifier.endpage278
dc.identifier.issn2459-1459
dc.identifier.issue2
dc.identifier.startpage274
dc.identifier.trdizinid1190738
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.871991
dc.identifier.urihttps://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/1190738
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12868/5377
dc.identifier.volume13
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001018991100007
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakTR-Dizin
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMarmara Univ, Inst Health Sciences
dc.relation.ispartofClinical and Experimental Health Sciences
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.snmzKA_WoS_20260121
dc.subjectConfocal laser microscopy
dc.subjectEDDY
dc.subjectEndoActivator
dc.subjectresidual sealer
dc.titleEvaluation of Residual Root Canal Sealer Removal Efficacy of Different Irrigation Activation Techniques by Confocal Laser Microscopy Analysis
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
TR-Dizin İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu