Sonic irrigant activation has gained widespread popularity among general dentists and endodontists currently. It is usually seen that sonic powered flosser which we have used in our study is in use in many dental colleges by post graduate students as it is construed to be the cheaper version of Endoactivator.To investigate the efficacy of sonic powered flosser with various irrigating techniques by checking the depth of sealer penetration. Forty five single-rooted teeth were instrumented and divided into 3 groups of 15 teeth each, as Group 1: endoactivator; Group 2: powered sonic flosser; Group 3: manual dynamic irrigation. The samples were obturated with AH Plus sealer labelled with Rhodamine B dye. The teeth were sectioned and viewed under confocal microscope to determine the depth of sealer penetration.Statistical analysis used: One way Anova F test was used for overall comparison among three groups and Tukey's post hoc test were used to evaluate the efficiency levels between groups. P value less than 0.05 was considered significant for all statistical test. The results showed that the maximum penetration was exhibited by endoactivator followed by manual dynamic irrigation and least by powered sonic flosser. The middle third showed the maximum penetration, followed by apical third in all the groups. Sonic powered flosser and manual agitation weren’t found to be as effective as Endoactivator, so in the absence of Endoactivator, sonic and manual agitation can’t be relied upon for desired results. The agitation of the irrigants is found to be most effective with endoactivator in order to achieve appreciable sealer penetration.So using sonic powered flosser will not be able to render the results as good as endoactivator.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call