{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.034023668639053255, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008875739644970414, 'mean_word_length': 5.013333333333334, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, '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}}
A comparative evaluation of different irrigation activation systems on smear layer removal from root canal: An in-vitro scanning electron microscope study

Aim: The aim of the following study is to compare the evaluation of different irrigation activation system-F-File, CanalBrush (CB) and EndoActivator (EA) in removing smear layer from root canal. Materials and Methods: Root canals of eighty single rooted decoronated premolar teeth were instrumented using crown-down technique and then equally divided into four groups on basis of irrigation activation methods used: Without irrigation - control group, irrigation with F-File, CB, EA into Group I, II, III respectively. Samples were then longitudinally sectioned and examined under scanning electron microscope by three qualified observers using score from 1 to 4. Data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago IL) at significance level of P ≤ 0.05. Results: Minimum mean score was observed in Group II at coronal, apical locations. Group III had minimum score at middle third. Groups difference in score were found to be significant statistically for all three locations as well as for overall assessment (P < 0.001). Conclusion: CB remove smear layer more efficiently from the root canal than F-File and EA in coronal and apical region.