Abstract
We evaluated and compared EndoActivator, CanalBrush, and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) in the removal of calcium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide with iodoform and p-chlorophenol paste (Calcipast Forte) from artificial standardized grooves in the apical third of root canals. A total of 34 mandibular premolars were prepared and then split longitudinally. A standardized groove was prepared in the apical part of both segments. The grooves were filled with either calcium hydroxide or Calcipast Forte, and the segments were reassembled. CanalBrush, EndoActivator, or PUI were used. The amount of remaining medicament was evaluated using a four-grade scoring system. None of the irrigation methods could completely remove the pastes from the grooves. More Calcipast Forte paste was detected compared with calcium hydroxide (P < 0.01). PUI was the least effective method in removing Calcipast Forte. It was more difficult to remove Calcipast Forte than a water-based calcium hydroxide paste.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
