User Guide
Why can I only view 3 results?
You can also view all results when you are connected from the network of member institutions only. For non-member institutions, we are opening a 1-month free trial version if institution officials apply.
So many results that aren't mine?
References in many bibliographies are sometimes referred to as "Surname, I", so the citations of academics whose Surname and initials are the same may occasionally interfere. This problem is often the case with citation indexes all over the world.
How can I see only citations to my article?
After searching the name of your article, you can see the references to the article you selected as soon as you click on the details section.
  Citation Number 2
 Views 2
 Downloands 3
Farklı endodontik irrigasyon aktivasyon teknikleri kullanılarak yapay oluklardan debriz uzaklaştırılması: ex vivo
2017
Journal:  
Acta Odontologica Turcica
Author:  
Abstract:

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the debris removal efficiency of different irrigation activation techniques from artificially formed endodontic grooves. Materials and Method: Crowns of twenty maxillary incisor teeth were removed and the root canals were prepared. Specimens were embedded in acrylic resin and placed into teflon molds. Acrylic resin blocks were removed from the molds and split longitudinally into equal two halves. A standardized artificial groove (4 mm x 0.2 mm x 0.5 mm) was prepared at 2 mm distance from the apex and filled with dentinal debris. Acrylic resin blocks were placed into the teflon mold again and compressed. Four different irrigation activation techniques; Manual Dynamic Irrigation (MDI), Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI), Sonic Irrigation (SI) and Apical Negative Pressure Irrigation (ANPI) were used for debris removal. Conventional Irrigation (CI) was applied as control. For standardization, each specimen was cleaned and reused (n=20). Before and after irrigation, images of the grooves were taken by using an operating microscope at x30 magnification. Amount of remaining debris was evaluated by using a scoring system. Data were analyzed by using Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=0.05). Results: There were statistically significant differences between the experimental groups (p<0.05). PUI (0.85±0.41) was found to be the most effective technique; whereas CI (2.30±1.03)  was found to be the least effective technique for debris removal (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between groups CI and SI, MDI and PUI, MDI and ANPI, and SI ve ANPI (p>0.05). Conclusion: PUI yielded the lowest debris scores. A simple and low-cost technique, MDI, yielded similar results with PUI.

Keywords:

Citation Owners
Attention!
To view citations of publications, you must access Sobiad from a Member University Network. You can contact the Library and Documentation Department for our institution to become a member of Sobiad.
Off-Campus Access
If you are affiliated with a Sobiad Subscriber organization, you can use Login Panel for external access. You can easily sign up and log in with your corporate e-mail address.
Similar Articles












Acta Odontologica Turcica

Field :   Sağlık Bilimleri

Journal Type :   Ulusal

Metrics
Article : 866
Cite : 718
Acta Odontologica Turcica