Comparative evaluation of phosphoric acid, EDTA and saline, with and without ultrasonic irrigation for smear layer removal- a SEM study

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
ParagM Wani ◽  
RajeshR Shetty ◽  
PradnyaS Kale ◽  
PriteshG Jagtap
2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1028-1035
Author(s):  
Sangeetha Vallikanthan ◽  
K Balakoti Reddy ◽  
Shreemoy Dash ◽  
Sowmya Kallepalli ◽  
N Chakrapani ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Objectives The present study was conducted to compare the cleaning efficacy (debris and smear layer removal) of hand and two NiTi rotary instrumentation systems (K3 and ProTaper). Materials and methods Sixty single rooted human maxillary anterior teeth decoronated at the cementoenamel junction were used. All the specimens were divided into four groups of 15 teeth each, group I—ProTaper rotary instrumentation done, group II—K3 rotary instrumentation done, group III—Stainless steel K-file instrumentation done, group IV—root canal irrigation without instrumentation. Root canal preparation was done in a crown down manner and 3% sodium hypochlorite was used as irrigant after each file followed by final rinse with 5 ml of 17% EDTA solution, then specimens were scanning electron microscopic (SEM) examination. Results Statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey's HSD test. Group I showed highly statistical significant difference compared to other groups. There was no statistically significant difference considering smear layer at any levels among the groups with no smear layer formation in group IV. Conclusion ProTaper rotary instrumentation showed the maximum cleaning efficacy followed by K3 rotary instrumentation in the coronal, middle and apical thirds of the root canal. Clinical significance ProTaper rotary instruments are more efficient than hand and K3 rotary instruments during root canal treatment. How to cite this article Reddy KB, Dash S, Kallepalli S, Vallikanthan S, Chakrapani N, Kalepu V. A Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy (Debris and Smear Layer Removal) of Hand and Two NiTi Rotary Instrumentation Systems (K3 and ProTaper): A SEM Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(6):1028-1035.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 527-531
Author(s):  
Saurabh Mankeliya ◽  
Neha Jaiswal ◽  
Rajnish K Singhal ◽  
Anushri Gupta ◽  
Vivek K Pathak ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 44-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Srikanth Pasari ◽  
Narender Reddy ◽  
Shilpa Reddy Admala ◽  
Sainath Reddy ◽  
Manoranjan Reddy ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-86
Author(s):  
Ajay Chhabra ◽  
Apoorva Rana ◽  
Nisha Garg ◽  
Ruhani Bhatia ◽  
Shobit Sethi

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


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document