METHODS: Fifteen intact, non-carious single-rooted teeth were decoronated at the cementoenamel junction. Visually, working length was determined by using a #15 K-file under stereomicroscope (×20). The effect of cellular phones on electronic working length (EWL) was determined under 2 experimental settings: (1) in a closed room with poor signal strength and (2) in a polyclinic set up with good signal strength and 5 conditions: (1) electronically, without cellular phone in room; (2) electronically, with cellular phone in physical contact with EAL; (3) electronically, with mobile phone in physical contact with EAL and in calling mode for a period of 25 seconds; (4) electronically, mobile phone placed at a distance of 40 cm from the EAL; and (5) electronically, mobile phone placed at a distance of 40 cm and in calling mode for a period of 25 seconds. The EWL was measured 3 times per tooth under each condition. Stability of the readings was scored from 1 to 3: (1) good stability, (2) stable reading after 1 attempt, and (3) stable reading after 2 attempts. The data were compared by using analysis of variance.
RESULTS: The EWL measurements were not influenced by the presence of cellular phone and could be determined under all experimental conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that mobile phones do not interfere with the EWL determination.
METHODS: A literature search was performed in 3 electronic databases for articles published before August 2018. Randomized clinical trials published in English that compared PP between machine-assisted agitation and syringe irrigation with needles as part of nonsurgical root canal treatment were included. Two authors were independently involved in the article selection process, data extraction, and assessment of the quality of included studies using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. The pooled effect estimates of the standardized mean difference (SMD) between machine-assisted agitation and syringe irrigation with needle was calculated by a random effects-modeled meta-analysis. A subgroup meta-analysis was performed. The quality of evidence was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach.
RESULTS: Six studies were included for systematic review. Meta-analysis was performed using 3 studies and showed that machine-assisted agitation resulted in less PP compared with syringe irrigation with needle at 24 hours (SMD = -0.73; 95% confidence interval, -1.04 to -0.42; I2 = 30.6%) and 48 hours (SMD = -0.60; 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.35; I2 = 0%). The quality of evidence by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations for the PP outcomes (24 hours and 48 hours) was graded as "moderate" quality.
CONCLUSIONS: Machine-assisted agitation reduced PP compared with syringe irrigation with needles in nonsurgical root canal treatment. Future clinical trials are needed to support the result of this review.