Comparison of the XP-Endo Finisher File System and Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI) on Smear Layer Removal after Root Canal Instrumentation  Effectiveness of Two Irrigation Methods on Smear Layer Removal

Introduction: Sodium Hypochlorite (NaOCl) remains gold standard as a result of its antimicrobial effect and tissue dissolution properties, but it has no effect on inorganic portion of smear layer. Thus the combination of NaOCl and EDTA has been proven to have the perfect ability in removal of both organic and inorganic debris. These irrigants when used with conventional syringe irrigation were unable to penetrate the apical portion of the root canal, so new activation devices have come in the market which claims to be effective in delivering the irrigant to the working length. Objective/Aim: This study evaluated and compared the efficacy of recently introduced irrigation activation devices EndoActivator, Passive ultrasonic irrigation and Laser on removal of smear layer from the apical third of instrumented root canal using Scanning electron microscope. Methods: Forty three single rooted teeth were prepared with the help of protaper files and divided into four groups. Group I: EDTA only, Group II: Endoactivator, Group III: Laser, Group IV: Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI). Three specimens were not treated with any smear layer removal protocol and were immediately sectioned and sent for SEM examination. The remaining 40 samples from 4 groups after treatment with different activation system were also sectioned and sent for SEM examination. The data obtained were statistically analysed using Friedman’s test. Results: All the four groups removed smear layer and the laser showed best smear layer removing capability compared to other groups but was significant only with respect to control and group I (EDTA group without any activation) (p<0.05). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, all the activation systems were able to remove the smear layer from the apical third of the root canal with laser showing the best result followed by Endoactivator and then PUI.

Download Full-text

Scanning Electron Microscopic Preliminary Study of the Efficacy of SmearClear and EDTA for Smear Layer Removal after Root Canal Instrumentation in Permanent Teeth

Journal of Endodontics ◽

10.1016/j.joen.2008.08.007 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 34 (12) ◽

pp. 1541-1544 ◽

Cited By ~ 21

Author(s):

Lea Assed Bezerra da Silva ◽

Ana Carolina Meng Sanguino ◽

Cristiane Tomaz Rocha ◽

Mario Roberto Leonardo ◽

Raquel Assed Bezerra Silva

Keyword(s):

Root Canal ◽

Smear Layer ◽

Permanent Teeth ◽

Electron Microscopic ◽

Layer Removal ◽

Scanning Electron Microscopic ◽

Preliminary Study ◽

Root Canal Instrumentation ◽

Scanning Electron

Download Full-text

Comparative Evaluation of Smear Layer Removal Using Four Different Irrigation Techniques: An in-vitro Study

International Healthcare Research Journal ◽

10.26440/ihrj/0302.05.521082 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 3 (2) ◽

pp. 80-86

Author(s):

Ajay Chhabra ◽

Apoorva Rana ◽

Nisha Garg ◽

Ruhani Bhatia ◽

Shobit Sethi

Keyword(s):

In Vitro Study ◽

Group Iv ◽

Smear Layer ◽

Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation ◽

Group Iii ◽

Layer Removal ◽

Group I ◽

Individual Comparison ◽

Ultrasonic Irrigation

INTRODUCTION: Irrigation is the vital part of root canal debridement. Usually post biomechanical preparation, the canal walls are covered by smear layer. It is important to remove this layer before obturation for better bond between the filling and walls. Conventional needle irrigation doesn’t give us adequate cleaning, therefore, new irrigation techniques are being tried to facilitate better smear layer removal. AIM: The aim was to evaluate and compare the smear layer removal by PATS, EndoActivator device, Passive ultrasonic irrigation and side vent needle irrigation from canal walls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 60 extracted mandibular premolars were instrumented up to 35/.04 with Heroshaper files. Samples were divided into 4 groups randomly before final irrigation as follows: Group I (n=15): Irrigation with side vent needles (Nexus ltd.,India), Group II (n=15): Irrigation with EndoActivator (Advanced Endodontics, Santa Barbara, CA ) Group III (n=15): Irrigation with PATS ( InnovationsEndo,India), Group IV (n=15): Irrigation with ultrasonic tips (Mani inc.). Teeth were split and one-half of each tooth was chosen for SEM examination. The images were taken at apical third and scoring was done according to criteria by Torabinejad et al in 2003. Data obtained were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance followed by Mann–Whitney U-test for individual comparison. RESULTS: All irrigating systems remove smear layer but PUI has better cleaning ability as compared to other groups. CONCLUSION: Passive ultrasonic irrigation shows better smear layer removal as compared to other techniques

Download Full-text

Influence of the type of instrument used in passive ultrasonic irrigation on the smear layer removal capacity

Dental Press Endodontics ◽

10.14436/2358-2545.5.3.028-033.oar ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 5 (3) ◽

pp. 28-33

Author(s):

Carolina Filpo-Perez ◽

Pablo Amoroso-Silva ◽

Bruno Guimarães ◽

Norberti Bernardineli ◽

Clovis Bramante ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Smear Layer ◽

Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation ◽

Layer Removal ◽

Removal Capacity ◽

Ultrasonic Irrigation

Download Full-text

Does the Use of Use of Continuous or Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation Protocols Improve the Removal of Smear Layer? A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-1118207/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Ramón Miguéns-Vila ◽

Pablo Castelo-Baz ◽

Saleta Aboy-Pazos ◽

David Uroz-Torres ◽

Pablo Álvarez-Nóvoa ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Negative Pressure ◽

Root Canal ◽

Smear Layer ◽

Electron Microscopic ◽

Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation ◽

Root Canals ◽

Scanning Electron Microscopic Study ◽

Ultrasonic Irrigation ◽

Conventional Irrigation ◽

Scanning Electron

Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of smear layer removal after the use of different irrigation methods (passive ultrasonic irrigation [PUI], continuous ultrasonic irrigation [CUI], apical negative pressure irrigation and conventional irrigation) using the scanning electron microscopy (SEM) as an analytical tool. A total of 100 single-canal teeth were decoronated and randomly divided into five groups (n = 20) according to the irrigation method used: conventional irrigation with front outlet syringe, conventional irrigation with lateral outlet syringe, apical negative pressure irrigation (EndoVac), PUI with Irrisafe, and CUI with ProUltra PiezoFlow ultrasonic irrigation needle. Root canal preparation was performed with the ProTaper Gold system up to the F4 instrument and 5.25% NaOCl was used as an irrigant. After chemical-mechanical preparation, the roots were split longitudinally, and the coronal, middle and apical thirds examined. SEM digital photomicrographs were taken at ×1000 magnification to evaluate the amount of smear layer in each root canal third. CUI was more effective in removing the smear layer than the other irrigation protocols. However, none of the irrigation protocols were able to produce root canals completely free from smear layer.

Download Full-text