Effectiveness of Three Different Application Times of 17% EDTA and 7% Maleic Acid Irrigation Agents on the Removal of Debris and Smear Layer: A Scanning Electron Microscope Study

Kaya, Sadullah; Adıgüzel, Özkan; Uysal, I. Tonguç; Ayaz, Selengül Ganidağlı

doi:10.5577/intdentres.2011.vol1.no2.2

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A previous study has shown that conventional needle irrigation delivered irrigating solution only 1 mm deeper than the tip of the needle (31). Removal of the smear layer and debris is more readily accomplished in the cervical and middle thirds of root canals than in the less-accessible apical third (19,32,33,34). Effective irrigation of the canal is essential in the critical the apical area during rootcanal treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kaya

2012

Int Dent Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kaya

2012

Int Dent Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Re-incorporation of teeth with previous endodontic treatment and excessive substance loss may be possible using posts inserted into the root canal, which assist retention of the restoration [ 1 – 3 ]. Debridement during root canal treatment is mandatory and is a major element of endodontic success [ 4 – 9 ]. Lasers can be used to produce dentin surfaces suitable for bonding of adhesive resin cement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laser Application to the Root Surface Increases the Bonding Strength of Surface-Treated Prefabricated Glass-Fiber Posts in Teeth with Excessive Substance Loss

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis study examined the effect of roughening of the root surface using an erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er: YAG) laser on the binding strength of teeth undergoing root canal treatment.Material/MethodsNinety single-rooted teeth were used and assigned randomly to 9 groups (n=10 each). Root canals were prepared using the FlexMaster rotary system. An Er: YAG laser was applied to the root canals in Group 1, with no surface treatment of the glass-fiber post. In Group 2, aluminum oxide particles were applied. In Group 3, the laser was applied to the root canals, with Cojet treatment. Group 4 received laser treatment and Clearfil Ceramic Primer. In Group 5, Clearfil Ceramic Primer silane coupling was performed on post surfaces without laser treatment. In Group 6, hydrofluoric acid (HF) application was followed by Clearfil Ceramic Primer cementing of the glass post surfaces with laser application. In Group 7, HF acid treatment was performed without laser. In Group 8, the laser was applied, followed by sanding of post surfaces using Korox 50, and silane coupling with Clearfil Ceramic Primer. In Group 9, the post surfaces were sanded using Korox 50 with laser application to the root canals. The samples were subjected to a push-out experiment. The data were analyzed using Friedman’s test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.ResultsA significant difference in bonding strength was found among the groups (p<0.005).ConclusionsUse of an Er: YAG laser in the root canal may be beneficial prior to bonding of glass posts.

show abstract

Effectiveness of Three Different Application Times of 17% EDTA and 7% Maleic Acid Irrigation Agents on the Removal of Debris and Smear Layer: A Scanning Electron Microscope Study

Cited by 2 publications

References 27 publications

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

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

Laser Application to the Root Surface Increases the Bonding Strength of Surface-Treated Prefabricated Glass-Fiber Posts in Teeth with Excessive Substance Loss

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About