Comparative Evaluation of Smear Layer Removal Efficacy Using QMix 2in1, Chitosan, Smear Clear and Glyde

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Shaheen Venghat ◽  
Mithra Hegde
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 ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Srivalli Podili ◽  
Parvataneni Krishna Prasad ◽  
T. B. V. G. Raju ◽  
Mahendra Varma Nadimpalli ◽  
Gowtam Dev Dondapati ◽  
...  

Aim: To compare the effect of EDTA, Phytic acid and Peracitic acid on smear layer removal by effective conventional irrigation. Materials and Methodology: A total of 50 extracted mandibular premolars were selected. The canals were instrumented by rotary system up to F2 ProTaper and irrigated with 3% NaOCL simultaneously, teeth were divided into 4 groups according to the final irrigants: 17% EDTA; 2.25% PERACITIC ACID; 1% Phytic Acid; and saline. The canals were irrigated with 25 guage side vented needles for 5 minutes. Specimens were examined under scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Smear layer removal was evaluated at coronal, middle and apical thirds of the root canal. The data is analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: In this study, the control group that is normal saline (4.05 ± 1.06) showed very less amount of smear layer removal. The highest amount of smear layer removal was seen in the group with phytic acid followed by peracitic acid and sodium hypochlorite groups. The apical third showed significantly more smear layer than the coronal and middle thirds (p<0.05). No significant difference was found between the coronal and middle thirds in all experimental groups (p>0.05). Conclusion: 1% phytic acid was the most effective in removing the smear layer at each level of the root canal followed by 2.5% peracitic and 17% EDTA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document