Search

Objectives: To evaluate SmearOFF, 7% maleic acid (MA) and two different preparations of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in smear layer removal.Materials and methods: Fifty single-rooted teeth were separated into five groups, instrumented and irrigated as follows: (1) SmearOFF, (2) 7% MA, (3) 18% EDTA (pH 11.4), (4) 17% EDTA (pH 8.5) and (5) 0.9% saline. Teeth samples were blinded and examined by scanning electron microscopy with Image J software.Results: Eighteen percent EDTA was less efficient when compared to SmearOFF and MA at all thirds of the root canal system. There was no difference between SmearOFF and MA in the coronal and middle thirds. In the apical third, MA removed more smear layer. Seventeen percent EDTA was as efficient as SmearOFF and MA in coronal and middle third but not in the apical third. Eighteen percent EDTA removed smear layer less efficiently in the coronal and middle thirds than 17% EDTA; in the apical third, there was no difference observed. In the saline group, all specimens were heavily smeared. There was no significant difference between 18% EDTA and saline at all canal thirds.Conclusions: SmearOFF and 17% EDTA (pH 8.5) had better smear layer removal capability in the coronal and middle thirds of the root canal system. In the apical third, 7% MA was superior. 18% EDTA (pH 11.4) and saline had poor smear layer removal ability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study evaluated intracanal smear layer removal using syringe and needle irrigation (ie, conventional irrigation [CI]) with and without adjunctive activation using EndoActivator® or EndoUltra®.Materials and Methods: Thirty-five premolars were divided into three experimental groups (n = 10) and a control (n = 5): (1) CI, (2) CI plus sonic activation (EndoActivator), (3) CI plus ultrasonic activation (EndoUltra), or (4) CI using saline. All teeth were prepared to a size #40 K file. Following irrigation, the teeth were split and imaged using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). SEM images were evaluated by: (1) blinded researchers who provided a smear layer score (1-5), and (2) a custom software algorithm that automatically and independently quantified the number of open tubules.Results: Use of both the EndoActivator and EndoUltra resulted in significantly cleaner smear layer scores at all canal thirds compared to CI (P < .001). The EndoUltra yielded significantly cleaner scores than the EndoActivator at the apical third (P < .001); however, no significant difference was evident in the middle and coronal thirds. The software analysis yielded the same conclusions as the smear layer scores except statistical significance was seen between the EndoUltra and EndoActivator at all canal thirds (P < .02). Of the adjunctive irrigant activators, the EndoUltra opened 94%, 117%, and 26% more tubules in the apex, middle, and coronal thirds, respectively, than the EndoActivator.Conclusions: The EndoUltra cleaned canals more effectively than the EndoActivator and CI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]