Electron-acoustic and surface electron beam induced voltage signal formation in scanning electron microscopy analysis of semiconducting samples

2004 ◽  
Vol 101 (2-4) ◽  
pp. 183-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
W.K. Wong ◽  
E.I. Rau ◽  
J.T.L. Thong
Keyword(s):  
Electron Microscopy ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscopy ◽  
Electron Beam ◽  
Induced Voltage ◽  
Surface Electron ◽  
Voltage Signal ◽  
Electron Microscopy Analysis ◽  
Microscopy Analysis ◽  
Electron Acoustic ◽  
Scanning Electron

Apicoectomy and Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis of an Implant Infected by Apical (Retrograde) Peri-implantitis: A Case Letter

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 287-291
Author(s):  
Rafael Manfro ◽  
Gislaine Felipe Garcia ◽  
Marcelo Carlos Bortoluzzi ◽  
Vinicius Fabris ◽  
Atais Bacchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Electron Microscopy ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscopy ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis ◽  
Electron Microscopy Analysis ◽  
Microscopy Analysis ◽  
Scanning Electron

scholarly journals Residual smear layer after root canal instrumentation by using Niti, M-Wire and CM-Wire instruments: A scanning electron microscopy analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (03) ◽  
pp. 403-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Machado ◽  
Daniel Comparin ◽  
Eduardo Donato Eing Engelke Back ◽  
Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia ◽  
Luiz Rômulo Alberton
Keyword(s):  
Electron Microscopy ◽  
Scanning Electron Microscopy ◽  
Root Canal ◽  
Smear Layer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Electron Microscopy Analysis ◽  
Microscopy Analysis ◽  
Root Canal Instrumentation ◽  
Reciprocating Systems ◽  
Scanning Electron

ABSTRACT Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of residual smear layer after root canal instrumentation by using Ni-Ti, M-Wire, and CM-Wire instruments. Materials and Methods: Seventy-two mandibular incisors were randomly divided into six groups according to the system used: WaveOne (WO), Reciproc (RP), Unicone (UC), ProTaper Next (PN), Mtwo (MT), and HyFlex (HF). Afterward, the specimens were cleaved in the mesiodistal and buccolingual direction for analysis by scanning electron microscopy. Results: Considering both directions and root canal thirds, there was no difference between HF, MT, and PN. RP, UC, and WO presented a significant difference between the directions, and the cervical third showed a significantly smaller quantity of residual smear layer compared with the apical third. When the systems were compared among them, there was a significant difference only between RP and WO. Conclusions: Residual smear layer observed after instrumentation with the different systems was similar, except for quantities between the reciprocating systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document