Comparative evaluation of apical pressure generated by EDDY, GentleWave G4, and passive ultrasonic irrigation: A 3D-printed root canal model

Hande Özyürek(1), Taha Özyürek(2), Olcay Özdemir(3), Ali Aminimofrad(4), Özkan Adıgüzel(5), Mustafa Gündoğar(6)
(1) Kocaeli Health and Technology University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Kocaeli, Türkiye,
(2) Bahçeşehir University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, İstanbul, Türkiye,
(3) Karabük University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Karabük, Türkiye,
(4) Bahçeşehir University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, İstanbul, Türkiye,
(5) Dicle University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Diyarbakır, Türkiye,
(6) İstanbul Medipol University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, İstanbul, Türkiye

Abstract

Aim: This in vitro study compared the mean and peak apical pressures generated by EDDY, GentleWave G4, and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) in a standardized 3D-printed root canal model.


Methodology: A standardized straight root canal model (apical diameter 0.25 mm, 4% taper, 16 mm working length) was fabricated by resin-based stereolithographic printing. Apical pressure was measured with a validated setup comprising a piezoresistive pressure transducer (PXM409-350; Omega), a DAQ board (USB6008; National Instruments), and LabVIEW software. Distilled water served as the irrigating medium. Twenty measurements were performed per group (n=20, 60 total), with each recording 12,020 data points over 12 seconds. EDDY was activated with a TA-200 air scaler (power level 2, #25/.04 tip); GentleWave G4 was operated per the manufacturer's protocol; and PUI was performed with a Newtron P5 XS ultrasonic unit (power level 6, IrriSafe #20 tip, 2 mm short of the working length). Normality was confirmed by the Shapiro-Wilk test, and group comparisons were performed using Welch ANOVA with Games–Howell post hoc comparisons. The study followed PRILE 2021 reporting guidelines.


Results: Significant differences were observed across all groups for both mean and peak apical pressures (p < 0.001). EDDY produced the highest mean (16.03 ± 4.04 mmHg) and peak (35.53 ± 2.84 mmHg) apical pressures, exceeding the safety threshold in every measurement. GentleWave G4 yielded a negative mean apical pressure (−15.60 ± 7.96 mmHg) and a mean peak of 8.00 ± 6.76 mmHg, remaining below the threshold throughout. PUI generated near-zero mean apical pressure (−0.07 ± 0.05 mmHg) and a mean peak of 2.27 ± 0.05 mmHg, consistently below the critical threshold. All pairwise comparisons were significant (p < 0.001), including GentleWave G4 vs. PUI for peak pressure (p = 0.003).


Conclusion: GentleWave G4 and PUI produced apical pressures below the established safety threshold, whereas EDDY exceeded it in all measurements, indicating a higher risk of periapical irrigant extrusion. Further ex vivo and in vivo studies with anatomically complex geometries are warranted.

Full text article

Generated from XML file

Authors

Hande Özyürek
Taha Özyürek
tahaozyurek@hotmail.com (Primary Contact)
Olcay Özdemir
Ali Aminimofrad
Özkan Adıgüzel
Mustafa Gündoğar
1.
Özyürek H, Özyürek T, Özdemir O, Aminimofrad A, Adıgüzel Özkan, Gündoğar M. Comparative evaluation of apical pressure generated by EDDY, GentleWave G4, and passive ultrasonic irrigation: A 3D-printed root canal model. Int Dent Res. 2026;16:e260742. doi:10.5577/intdentres.742

Article Details

How to Cite

1.
Özyürek H, Özyürek T, Özdemir O, Aminimofrad A, Adıgüzel Özkan, Gündoğar M. Comparative evaluation of apical pressure generated by EDDY, GentleWave G4, and passive ultrasonic irrigation: A 3D-printed root canal model. Int Dent Res. 2026;16:e260742. doi:10.5577/intdentres.742
Smart Citations via scite_

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

<< < 1 2 3 4 > >> 

Efficacy of laser-activated irrigation with the SWEEPS modality in removing calcium hydroxide from simulated internal resorption cavities

Erhan Erkan, Rabia Nur Aydın, Seda Falakaloğlu, Merve Yeniçeri Özata, Mustafa Gündoğar
Abstract View : 1531
Download :747