• D Turkaydin, F B Basturk, S Goker, B Tarcin, Y Garip Berker, and H Sazak Ovecoglu.
• Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey.
• Niger J Clin Pract. 2020 Sep 1; 23 (9): 1237-1242.

AimsWe 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.Materials And MethodsA 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.ResultsNone 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.ConclusionsIt was more difficult to remove Calcipast Forte than a water-based calcium hydroxide paste.

23 keywords...

hide…