Advanced Search

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorUslu, Gülşah
dc.contributor.authorGündoğar, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorÜngör, Mete
dc.contributor.authorÖzyürek, Taha
dc.contributor.authorErkan, Erhan
dc.contributor.authorKeskin, Neslihan Büşra
dc.date.accessioned2023-08-21T06:10:18Z
dc.date.available2023-08-21T06:10:18Z
dc.date.issued2023en_US
dc.identifier.citationUslu, G., Gündoğar, M., Üngör, M., Özyürek, T., Erkan, E., & Keskin, N. B. (2023). Investigation of the effectiveness of sonic, ultrasonic and new laser-assisted irrigation activation methods on smear removal and tubular penetration. Lasers in Medical Science, 38(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-022-03697-8en_US
dc.identifier.issn0268-8921 / 1435-604X
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-022-03697-8
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12428/4481
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of different irrigation activation methods on smear layer removal and tubular penetration. One hundred-five distal roots of mandibular molar teeth in total; 50 for smear removal efficiency (n = 10) analysis using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and 55 roots were used to examine tubular penetration using confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Five different irrigation activation methods were used in this study; conventional needle irrigation (CNI), sonic irrigation device of EDDY, passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), PIPS and SWEEPS techniques, which are two different laser irrigation activation methods. The obtained data were statistically analyzed and the significance level was determined as p < 0.05. At the apical level, the cleanest canal walls were observed when laser methods PIPS and SWEEPS were used, while in the middle third, there was no difference in smear removal efficiencies between all groups except for the CNI (p > 0.05). Penetration depths and percentages increased from apically to coronally in all groups. The PUI and EDDY generally showed similar penetration depths and percentages to the CNI, except at the coronal root level (p > 0.05). In all groups, when PIPS was used, it showed greater penetration depth and percentage (p < 0.05). PIPS and SWEEPS techniques showed lowest and similar smear scores compared to PUI and EDDY in the apical area where access and effectiveness of the irrigation solution are difficult.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbHen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectConfocal laser scanning microscopyen_US
dc.subjectEDDYen_US
dc.subjectPassive ultrasonic irrigationen_US
dc.subjectPIPSen_US
dc.subjectSWEEPSen_US
dc.titleInvestigation of the effectiveness of sonic, ultrasonic and new laser-assisted irrigation activation methods on smear removal and tubular penetrationen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.authorid0000-0003-3176-1251en_US
dc.relation.ispartofLasers in Medical Scienceen_US
dc.departmentFakülteler, Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Endodonti Ana Bilim Dalıen_US
dc.identifier.volume38en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.institutionauthorUslu, Gülşah
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10103-022-03697-8en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.authorwosid-en_US
dc.authorscopusid57191441826en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000907105400002en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85145414443en_US
dc.identifier.pmidPMID: 36595139en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record