Purpose: To compare the efficacy of EDDY, XP-Endo Finisher R (XPFR), and EndoUltra in removing Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) from oval root canals with standard needle irrigation (SNI).
Methods: A total of 72 teeth with single-rooted and single oval-shaped root canals were selected. Teeth were sterilized in an autoclave, infected with E. faecalis, and inoculated in an incubator at 37°C for 7 days. Four teeth were processed for scanning electron microscopy analysis to control biofilm formation. The remaining 68 teeth were prepared with Reciproc Blue 25.08 and 40.06 files and then divided into four groups according to the irrigation activation techniques used: EDDY, EndoUltra, XPFR, and SNI (n = 17). Before (S1) and after (S2) irrigation techniques, the bacterial samples were taken from the root canals and colony-forming units (CFUs) were counted and calculated (CFU/mL). The data were statistically analyzed using the Shapiro–Wilk, Kruskal–Wallis, and Wilcoxon tests (p = 0.05).
Results: It was observed that CFU counts decreased significantly from S1 to S2 (p< 0.05). However, there was no significant difference among the irrigation activation techniques in terms of removing E. faecalis (p> 0.05).
Conclusion: The efficiency of EDDY, EndoUltra, XPFR, and SNI in the removal of E. faecalis was similar.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the accuracy of access cavities prepared by undergraduate students at a dental faculty.
Methods: Access cavities prepared by students were evaluated (n = 389). Before the evaluation, additional-printed information was given to the students. The data were collected using two forms (Descriptive Data and Access Cavity Preparation Assessment forms). The forms were completed by one researcher who was previously trained. In the form, “1” and “0” points were given for every “yes” and “no” answer. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, frequency, and percentage) were obtained and statistically analyzed (Mann–Whitney U, Kruskal–Wallis H tests).
Results: The average total achievement score was 66.58. The achievement scores for third-, fourth-, and fifth-year students were 68.19, 58.02, and 73.58, respectively. The highest achievement scores were recorded in the upper and lower premolars (71.74 and 69.56, respectively), and the lowest scores were recorded for the upper molars (59.59). Insufficient removal of the pulp chamber roof (41.1%), unsupported tissues (29%), pulp chamber damage (14.1%), nonidentified canal orifice (17.2%), insufficient removal of lingual shoulders and pulp horns (49.2% and 27%) in anterior teeth, and incomplete removal of decayed tissues (32.8%) were recorded.
Conclusion: Improvement is still necessary for the current preclinical training program, while more clinical experience should be provided for the dental students in clinics.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the photon-induced photoacoustic streaming (PIPS) and the shock wave-enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming (SWEEPS) in terms of calcium hydroxide (CH) removal and apical extrusion in curved root canals.
Methods: The mesiobuccal roots of 20 maxillary molars were split longitudinally. CH was placed into the artificial grooves prepared in the apical third, and the root halves were reassembled. The samples were randomly divided into two groups for irrigation protocol (n = 10): PIPS (Group 1) and SWEEPS (Group 2). After irrigation activation protocols using EDTA (2 mL, 17%) for 3 × 20 s, the tooth halves were separated, and the remaining CH was measured as pixels under a stereomicroscope at 10× magnification. Apical extrusion was calculated using a cube-shaped flower arrangement foam by subtracting the initial weights from the final weights (mg). The data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test. The level of significance was taken as p< 0.05.
Results: There was no significant difference between SWEEPS and PIPS in terms of residual CH values (p> 0.05). CH was completely removed in 4 samples in the PIPS group and only 1 sample in the SWEEPS group. Both groups exhibited similar apical extrusion.
Conclusion: The SWEEPS modality performed similar efficacy as the PIPS modality in terms of CH removal and apical extrusion during irrigation activation procedures.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cleanliness of post space walls after using two different post space preparation (PSP) and three different root canal wall cleaning techniques.
Methods: A total of 104 mandibular premolars were selected. After root canal preparation, specimens were divided into two groups (n = 52) for PSP treatment: conventional post space preparation (CPSP) and modified post space preparation (MPSP). Four subgroups (n = 13) were defined based on the cleaning method: control, self-adjusting-file (SAF), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and photon-induced photoacoustic streaming (PIPS). Micro-computed tomography (µ-CT) scans of the teeth were performed before and after the post space cleaning techniques. The remaining residue volumes were measured to calculate cleaning percentages (%).
Results: After the first µ-CT scan, there was a significant difference between CPSP and MPSP (p< 0.05). A higher residue volume was generated on post space walls following the MPSP technique compared with the CPSP technique (p< 0.05). In both PSP techniques, significant differences were observed among the irrigation procedures (p< 0.05). Cleaning efficiency was highest for SAF in group CPSP and PIPS in group MPSP (p< 0.05). Pairwise comparisons revealed a residue volume similarity between the same cleaning techniques of the PSP groups (p> 0.05), except for the PIPS technique (p< 0.05).
Conclusion: CPSP can be preferred over the MPSP in clinical practice because it removes more residues. PIPS and SAF are more effective than PUI.

Purpose: This observational study aimed to evaluate post endodontic pain using Twisted File (TF), TF-Adaptive (TFA), and TruNatomy (TRN) files after a single visit root canal treatment.
Methods: A total of 150 healthy patients with asymptomatic maxillary or mandibular molar teeth identified for root canal treatment were allocated into three groups according to the instrumentation technique used: Group 1 (TF), Group 2 (TFA), and Group 3 (TRN) file systems were used in a single visit. The pain level after 72 h was questioned using a visual analog scale. Scores were analyzed using the Chi-square test with a significance value of p< 0.05.
Results: A significant difference was found between groups in terms of pain incidence (p = 0.048). In the pairwise comparison, there was no difference between Groups 1 and 2 (TF and TFA) (p = 0.547), and there was no difference between Groups 1 and 3 (TF and TRN) (p = 0.201). A significant difference was found between Group 2 (TFA) and Group 3 (TRN) in terms of pain incidence (p = 0.007).
Conclusion: All file systems used in the study caused post endodontic pain. When evaluating patients experiencing “no pain,” the incidence of symptoms was higher with the TRN systems.

This case report describes the treatment of avulsion and intrusion trauma of the upper left incisors in a 21-year-old female patient. The avulsed tooth was stored in dry conditions for 48 h since the accident happened. Teeth were treated according to the trauma protocol recommended for avulsed and intruded teeth. During the 1-year follow-up period, absence of mobility, root resorption, or any symptoms were observed in the clinical and radiological examination.