title: Comparison of passive ultrasonic debridement between fluted and nonfluted instruments in root canals.
abstract: The purpose of this study was to determine if passive ultrasonic irrigation using finger spreaders was more effective than standard files in removing debris after root canal instrumentation. Eighty-five straight canals were instrumented and then passively ultrasonically irrigated with either fluted files or nonfluted finger spreaders for 3 minutes or 1 minute. Images of split canal lumens were imported into Adobe Photoshop CS2 (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA), and percentage of debris remaining was calculated. Analysis of variance and Student Newman-Keuls post hoc tests (p<0.05) showed that when comparing the entire canal, 3 minutes of activation with a file had significantly less debris remaining than 1 minute of activation with a spreader. There was a trend for 1 minute of activation with a file to have less debris than either 3 minutes or 1 minute of activation with a spreader. When comparing apical, middle, or coronal thirds between groups, no significant differences were found. The use of a nonfluted spreader did not improve debris removal.
authors: Naval Postgraduate Dental School, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
authors: Patrick J
authors: PJ
authors: Munley
authors: Gary G
authors: GG
authors: Goodell
mesh_terms: D000704:Analysis of Variance; D006801:Humans; D018915:Root Canal Preparation / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods; D007507:Therapeutic Irrigation / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D014464:Ultrasonic Therapy / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods