Er:YAG laser evaluation of smear layer removal from flattened root canals submitted to rotary instrumentation

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Heredia Seixas ◽  
Aldo Brugnera, Jr. ◽  
Ricardo Gariba Silva ◽  
Alexandre Capelli ◽  
Danilo M. Zanello Guerisoli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Er:Yag Laser ◽  
Smear Layer ◽  
Layer Removal ◽  
Root Canals

SEM evaluation of smear layer removal by Er:YAG laser in root canals

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aldo Brugnera, Jr. ◽  
Iain M. Roe ◽  
Danilo M. Guerisoli ◽  
Joao Vicente B. Barbizam ◽  
Jesus D. Pecora
Keyword(s):  
Er:Yag Laser ◽  
Smear Layer ◽  
Layer Removal ◽  
Root Canals

In vitro evaluation of smear layer removal of root canals by irradiation with Er:YAG laser after Ni-Ti rotary instrumentation

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Capelli ◽  
Aldo Brugnera, Jr. ◽  
Fabio Heredia Seixas ◽  
Melissa A. Marchesan ◽  
Danilo M. Zanello Guerisoli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Er:Yag Laser ◽  
Smear Layer ◽  
In Vitro Evaluation ◽  
Layer Removal ◽  
Root Canals

scholarly journals Efficacy of MTAD solution and Er:YAG laser in smear layer removal from extracted root canals: a sem evaluation.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Işıl KALYONCU ◽  
Figen EREN GİRAY ◽  
Basak DURMUS ◽  
Yildiz GARİP BERKER ◽  
İ̇lknur TANBOĞA
Keyword(s):  
Er:Yag Laser ◽  
Smear Layer ◽  
Layer Removal ◽  
Root Canals

scholarly journals Smear layer removal capacity of disinfectant solutions used with and without EDTA for the irrigation of canals: a SEM study

2003 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Carolina Silveira Cardoso de Menezes ◽  
Caio Gorgulho Zanet ◽  
Márcia Carneiro Valera
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
Saline Solution ◽  
Sem Analysis ◽  
Smear Layer ◽  
Electron Microscopic ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Layer Removal ◽  
Root Canals ◽  
Removal Capacity ◽  
Group 5

The purpose of this study was to carry out a scanning electron microscopic (SEM) analysis of the cleaning qualities and smear layer removal from root canal walls, instrumented and irrigated with 2.5% NaOCl, 2.0% chlorhexidine and saline solutions. Fifty extracted teeth were used in this study. All teeth were radiographed to determine the existence of a single canal. The crowns were cut at the cervical limit and the root canals were instrumented with K-type files up to size 45. During root canal preparation, irrigations were made with the different solutions being evaluated: Group 1: 2.5% NaOCl (10 roots); Group 2: 2.5% NaOCl and 17% EDTA for 2 minute (10 roots); Group 3: 2.0% chlorhexidine (10 roots); Group 4: 2.0% chlorhexidine and 17% EDTA for 2 minutes (10 roots); Group 5: saline solution (5 roots); Group 6: saline solution and 17% EDTA for 2 minutes (5 roots). After instrumentation, the canals were irrigated with each one of the solutions and the roots were cut in the buccolingual direction for SEM analysis, at the cervical, middle and apical thirds, to ascertain the presence or absence of smear layer and debris. SEM analysis was performed by three calibrated examiners and scores were submitted to Kruskal-Wallis test at the significance level of p = 5%. Results showed that the use of 17% EDTA decreased the smear layer significantly (p < 0.05) for all evaluated solutions in all thirds. When EDTA was not used, a significantly higher quantity of smear layer on the apical third was observed only in the NaOCl groups. The use of 17% EDTA was significant for debris removal except for the chlorhexidine groups. The following conclusion could be drawn: the use of 17% EDTA was necessary to enhance cleanness of the root canals.

In vitro evaluation of smear layer removal by Er:YAG laser application with five different fiberoptic tip withdrawl techniques

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aldo Brugnera, Jr. ◽  
Danilo M. Zanello Guerisoli ◽  
Melissa A. Marchesan ◽  
Julio C. Emboava Spano ◽  
Jesus Djalma Pecora
Keyword(s):  
Er:Yag Laser ◽  
Smear Layer ◽  
Laser Application ◽  
In Vitro Evaluation ◽  
Layer Removal

Comparison of coronal leakage after smear layer removal with EDTA or Er:YAG laser

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesus D. Pecora ◽  
Yasmine Mamere de Almeida ◽  
Melissa A. Marchesan ◽  
Fatima A. A. Zanin ◽  
Aldo Brugnera, Jr.
Keyword(s):  
Er:Yag Laser ◽  
Smear Layer ◽  
Layer Removal

scholarly journals Smear-layer Removal Using Two Instrumentation and Irrigation Techniques in a Closed System

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 60
Author(s):  
Sadullah Kaya
Keyword(s):  
Closed System ◽  
Native Speakers ◽  
Smear Layer ◽  
Continuous Irrigation ◽  
Layer Removal ◽  
Root Canals ◽  
Irrigation Methods ◽  
Native Speakers Of English ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of two instrumentation and irrigant techniques in smear-layer removal from root canals. Methodology: Thirty single-rooted teeth were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 (continuous irrigation) was prepared using Self-adjusting file, and group 2 (manual irrigation; conventional needle irrigation) was prepared using with ProTaper file system. Groups were irrigated using sodium hypochlorite (5%) as an initial irrigant following MTAD in a closed system. Canals were bisected and examined by scanning electron microscopy. Smear layers were evaluated using a five-point scoring system with 2500x magnification. Results: Smear layers were eliminated in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root canal, respectively, in 93%, 80%, and 60% of samples in the group 1, and 67%, 60%, and 27% in the group 2, of the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root canals, respectively. Evaluation by SEM showed continuous irrigation differed not-significantly from the manual irrigation group in all areas (P >0.05). Conclusions: Smear layer can be removed properly with suitable irrigation methods. How to cite this article: Kaya S. Smear-layer Removal Using Two Instrumentation and Irrigation Techniques in a Closed System. Int Dent Res 2012;2:60-66. Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document