Comparative Evaluation of Polymeric and Metal Ultrasonic Tips for the Removal of Calcium Hydroxide From Root Canals

26 May 2026 : Laboratory Research

Ahmet Akay

^{ABDEF 1}, Seda Erkan Akay

^{ABDEF 1*}, Mehmet Emin Doğan

^{CD 2}, Fatma Adıyaman Portakal

^{B 1}, Ayşe Beyza Gişi

^{B 1}

DOI: 10.12659/MSM.952774

Med Sci Monit 2026; 32:e952774

Authors information Article notes Copyright and License information

Introduction Material and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions References

Related articles Order reprints Share article Share by email

View HTML version

Table 2 Comparison of amount of observed residual Ca(OH)2 in artificial grooves.

Level	Score 0 (none)	Score 1 (<50%)	Score 2 (>50%)	Score 3 (full)	P value
	0 (0%)a	5 (25%)a	9 (45%)a	6 (30%)a	0.007^*
	3 (15%)a	11 (55%)a	6 (30%)a	0 (0%)b
	3 (15%)a	9 (45%)a	8 (40%)a	0 (0%)b
	0 (0%)	5 (25%)a	10 (50%)a	5 (25%)a	0.007^*
	0 (0%)	13 (65%)b	7 (35%)a	0 (0%)b
	0 (0%)	11 (55%)ab	9 (45%)a	0 (0%)b
^* Pearson’s Chi-Square test; CNI – conventional needle irrigation; MUA – metal ultrasonic activation; PUA – polymer ultrasonic activation. Groups sharing the same letter do not differ significantly at the .05 level.

Back to the Article