Table 3 Cleanliness of root canal treated with different methods expressed as Score percentages
| SCORE | 1 (%) | 2 (%) | 3 (%) | 4 (%) | 5 (%) | 1 (%) | 2 (%) | 3 (%) | 4 (%) | 5 (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 mm | 3 mm | ||||||||||
| A | CTR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 44 | 56 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 67 | 33 |
| B | EA | 0 | 5 | 15 | 25 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 25 | 75 | 0 |
| C | PUI | 0 | 0 | 5 | 70 | 25 | 0 | 5 | 35 | 55 | 5 |
| D | PIPS | 0 | 30 | 35 | 30 | 5 | 0 | 55 | 40 | 5 | 0 |
| E | SWEEPS | 0 | 0 | 35 | 55 | 10 | 0 | 15 | 70 | 10 | 5 |
| Significant result at: p < 0.01 | A,C vs D | A,C vs D,E | C vs D |
A vs D,E B vs D | A,B,C vs D |
A vs B,D,E B,C vs E | A,B,C vs D,E | A vs B,D | |||
| 5 mm | 8 mm | ||||||||||
| A | CTR | 0 | 11 | 11 | 56 | 22 | 0 | 11 | 22 | 56 | 11 |
| B | EA | 5 | 20 | 45 | 30 | 0 | 15 | 45 | 25 | 15 | 0 |
| C | PUI | 0 | 35 | 35 | 30 | 0 | 30 | 65 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| D | PIPS | 40 | 50 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 80 | 15 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| E | SWEEPS | 20 | 40 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 20 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Significant result at: p < 0.01 | A,B,C vs D | A vs D |
A vs E B vs D | A,B,C vs D,E |
A vs B, D,E B,C vs D,E |
A vs B,C C vs D,E B vs D | A vs B,C,D,E | ||||
| Significant result at: p < 0.05 | A vs B | A vs C |