Sonic versus ultrasonic activation of sodium hypochlorite

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Is sonic activation of sodium hypochlorite more effective than ultrasonic activation in simulated root canals?

  • IRAS ID

    126142

  • Contact name

    David Ceselsky

  • Contact email

    0920249@chester.ac.uk

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    0 years, 6 months, 12 days

  • Research summary

    In this study the researcher will address the question whether sonic activation of sodium hypochlorite is more effective than ultrasonic activation in simulated root canals.

    During root canal treatment, inflamed or infected pulp is removed and the inside of the tooth is carefully cleaned and disinfected. Rinsing of root canal system is a fundamental step towards a successful outcome. Dentine debris appears in the root canal as a result of cleaning and shaping. This debris can block access to other parts of the canal and thus worsen prognosis of the treatment. In order to further improve the efficiency of rinsing agents, several agitation techniques have been used to help remove dentine debris.

    This study adopts an experimental design to compare the efficiency in dentine debris removal of two means of rinsing agent activation in a plastic block (simulated tooth). Sonic activation by EndoActivator® will be tested against ultrasonic activation represented with P5 Newtron®. Data collected in this study can improve treatment protocols used by dentists performing root canal therapy. Achieving the highest standard possible is considered to be in the best interest of patients.

    Public involvement in this study will be limited to dentine donation in form of extracted teeth. Teeth collected with informed consent from private patients will be extracted for genuine medical reasons (unrestorable teeth due to severe periodontitis - gum disease, trauma or decay).

    This research will be conducted at Rejuvadent, Scunthorpe, with the full consent of the principal/owner.

    The estimated length of the study including dentine collection should not exceed two months. Additional 30 days will be needed for data analysis. Patients will not experience anything different from their usual treatment, which is a planned extraction of an unsaveable tooth. Their only involvement will be fully consented dentine donation.

  • REC name

    East Midlands - Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    15/EM/0242

  • Date of REC Opinion

    20 May 2015

  • REC opinion

    Favourable Opinion