Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 17, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Debris Removal from Mandibular Molars Using Different Irrigation Volumes and Ultrasonic Tips: Micro-CT Study
Alinne Patiery Pacífico Oliveira Feitosa1, Arthur Costa Lemos2, Suyane Maria Luna-Cruz1
1Post-graduate Program in Dentistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Dentistry and Nursing, Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Background:
This study compared the impact of varying irrigating solution volumes and two ultrasonic tips on removing hard tissue debris (HTD) during passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) in mesial roots of mandibular molars.
Material And Methods:
Sixty roots were instrumented using WaveOne Gold 35/.06 divided into 5 groups (n=12): Irrisonic 6 mL (IR6), Irrisonic 30 mL (IR30), Irrisonic Power 6 mL (IRP6), Irrisonic Power 30 mL (IRP30), and a control group with conventional irrigation. Microcomputed Tomography was used to measure HTD removal. Statistical analysis used ANOVA, Tukey, and t-Student tests (α = 5%).
Results:
Significant differences were observed in HTD removal between the IR30, IRP6, IRP30 groups, and the control group (P < 0.0001), while no statistical significance was found between IR6 and the control group (P > 0.05). A statistical difference was observed between IR30 and IR6 (P < 0.05). IR30 achieved the highest debris removal rate (87.63%), while IR6 showed the lowest (80.16%). Significant differences were observed between experimental and control groups (P < 0.05), except for IR6 (P > 0.05).
Conclusions:
A larger volume of irrigating solution (30 mL compared to 6 mL) during the PUI protocol resulted in greater removal of HTD. Additionally, the Irrisonic Power tip did not significantly enhance HTD removal. Key words:Endodontics, Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation, Root Canal Irrigant, Ultrasonic tip, X-ray microtomography.
