{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03529411764705882, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008823529411764706, 'mean_word_length': 4.901734104046243, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Efficacy of different irrigation activation systems on bacterial extrusion.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quantity of extruded bacteria following with EndoVac, EDDY, EndoActivator (EA) and standard needle irrigation (SNI). Ninety teeth with a single root and canal were included in this study. Fifteen teeth were selected as the negative control group to confirm sterilization. Seventy-five teeth were contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) for 4 weeks. Teeth were prepared and divided into five groups (n:15): EndoVac, EDDY, EA, SNI and positive control groups. The extruded bacteria were cultured for bacterial quantification. The counts of extruded bacteria were lower in the EndoVac group compared to the EDDY group (P˂ 0.05). The counts of extrusion bacteria were not different in EA and SNI groups compared to EDDY and EndoVac groups (P > 0.05). Within the limits of this study, EndoVac was found to be more reliable irrigation systems than EDDY in terms of the bacterial extrusion.