Evidence Hub

In vivo debridement efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation following hand-rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars

Gutarts R, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M

Journal of endodontics, 2005

Abstract

This study histologically compared the in vivo debridement efficacy of hand/rotary canal preparation versus a hand/rotary/ultrasound technique in mesial root canals of vital mandibular molars. Group 1 consisted of 16 teeth prepared with a hand/rotary technique whereas group 2 consisted of 15 teeth prepared in similar fashion but followed by 1 min of ultrasonic irrigation, per canal, utilizing an ultrasonic needle in a MiniEndo unit. Five uninstrumented mandibular molars served as histologic controls. After extraction and histologic preparation, 0.5 microm cross-sections, taken every 0.2 mm from the 1- to 3-mm apical levels, were evaluated for percentage of tissue removal. Nonparametric analysis revealed mean percent canal and isthmus cleanliness values to be significantly higher for group 2 at all levels evaluated, except one. In conclusion, the 1 min use of the ultrasonic needle after hand/rotary instrumentation resulted in significantly cleaner canals and isthmuses in the mesial roots of mandibular molars.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free