Evaluation of smear layer removal after use of a canal brush: an SEM study

Garip, Yıldız; Sazak, Hesna; Günday, Mahir; Hatipoğlu, Seda

doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.02.037

Cited by 42 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The aforementioned studies, though, found insignificant differences between groups, which is not in line with the present finding, that the use of the CanalBrush significantly worsened the results. The significantly higher scores that were obtained in the coronal and middle thirds in group B could be explained by the fact that, in contrast to previously published research (18)(19)(20) EDTA was not agitated with the CanalBrush within the root canals, since this was not included in the manufacturer's instructions. Another explanation of this discrepancy may be that previous studies advocated larger canal preparations in combination to the same or smaller CanalBrush sizes -25/0.09 medium-sized CanalBrush (18) and 40/0.06, small-sized CanalBrush (19).…”

Section: Effectiveness Of a Canal Brushmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…The significantly higher scores that were obtained in the coronal and middle thirds in group B could be explained by the fact that, in contrast to previously published research (18)(19)(20) EDTA was not agitated with the CanalBrush within the root canals, since this was not included in the manufacturer's instructions. Another explanation of this discrepancy may be that previous studies advocated larger canal preparations in combination to the same or smaller CanalBrush sizes -25/0.09 medium-sized CanalBrush (18) and 40/0.06, small-sized CanalBrush (19). It seems that the smaller canal preparation advocated in the present study (30/0.6) combined with the medium-sized CanalBrush (ISO: 30), although in line with company's suggestions (larger than the minimum preparation suggested for the medium sized canal brush), led to an early bristle deformation and "squeezing" inside the proportionally narrow root canal.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of a Canal Brushmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…This was not the case for the apical third, where no significant difference in smear layer scores was noticed between groups A and B. No improvement in cleanliness has also been reported by Garip et al 2010, where no significant differences were noted between groups with or without the use of the CanalBrush (18). Furthermore, Rödig et al 2010 reported no significant differences for smear layer scores in the apical and middle thirds of root canals with or without the use of CanalBrush (19).…”

Section: Effectiveness Of a Canal Brushmentioning

confidence: 86%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effectiveness of a Canal Brush on Removing Smear Layer: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the effectiveness of a highly flexible endodontic brush made of polypropylene canal brush (CanalBrush; Coltène) on smear layer removal from the canal walls when used according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Forty-four single-rooted mandibular incisors were prepared to apical size 30/0.06 and randomly divided into three groups A, B and C, where the final irrigation regimen was 10 mL 17% EDTA and 10 mL 2.5% NaOCl for group A, 10 mL EDTA, 5 mL NaOCl, CanalBrush for 20 s at 450 rpm and 5 mL NaOCl for group B, 10 mL NaOCl, CanalBrush and 10 mL NaOCl for group C. One medium-sized CanalBrush was used for each root canal and all brushes were examined under the optical microscope after application to evaluate bristle deformation. Afterwards, roots were split longitudinally and the presence of smear layer was evaluated under a scanning electron microscope. Used brushes invariably exhibited bristle deformation. Group C exhibited the highest means of smear layer in all thirds. Comparing the apical thirds in all groups, there was no statistical difference between groups A and B (3.64±0.48 and 3.68±0.62 respectively), while group C exhibited significantly higher scores (3.9±0.28) than the other two groups. In conclusion, the CanalBrush proved unable to remove smear layer from the instrumented root canals, when used according to the manufacturers' instructions.

show abstract

Section: Effectiveness Of a Canal Brushmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Effectiveness Of a Canal Brushmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Effectiveness Of a Canal Brushmentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness of a Canal Brush on Removing Smear Layer: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, nylon, which is a synthetic aliphatic polyamide, is a relatively soft material and it has been used in endodontics as a canal brush [10]. One study focused on evaluating the removal of a smear layer by using a new kind of CanalBrush, and it was reported that the CanalBrush was more effective in the narrow parts of the root canal, e.g., apical and middle area, where it could have a better contact with the root canal wall [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An in vitro Evaluation on a Novel Root Canal Cleansing Method by Using Nylon Fibers

Gao

Tsoi

Cheung

et al. 2015

Fibers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite traditional metal-based dental files, such as NiTi being demonstrated effective in root cleaning, the tooth structure is always damaged. Thus, to fulfill the need for a minimally invasive tool for contemporary endodontics and dentistry, the use of polymer fibers might provide a good option, as it is soft, fabricable, and disposable. In this study, two types of nylon fibers with respective average diameters of 206.9 µm (fiber W) and 156.4 µm (fiber B), respectively, were used as dental files, and mounted onto either a reciprocating or a low-speed rotary hand-piece. In vitro, simulated root canal models were colored red using nail varnish, and then cleaned by the fiber files mounted on the hand-pieces. Three parts of the simulated models, i.e., the apical third, the medium third, and the coronal third, were chosen to assess the cleaning the efficiency (CE) of each specimen by calculating the ratio of the cross-sectional area changes, before and after cleansing, using micro-Computer Tomography (CT). A NiTi file with a low-speed hand-piece was used as a control. SEM was used to observe the nylon fiber surfaces before and after the cleansing. Micro-CT results showed that for both the nylon fibers, W and B, an average CE of 82.11% ± 9.68% for the medium third could be achieved, which is statistically higher (p < 0.01) than the coronal third and apical third. The cleansing efficiency was not affected by, the types of fibers, nor the hand-pieces according to student's t-test. Most of the nylon fibers could withstand deformation after the cleansing. To conclude, nylon fiber files have demonstrated a certain 198cleansing efficiency in simulated root canals, and micro-CT is a promising method to assess CE.

show abstract

“…These accidents make it difficult for clinicians to obtain a properly cleaned and filled root canal and might lead to endodontic treatment failure. Several authors have studied different endodontic techniques and instruments for cleaning and shaping (1-3), using different study methods: scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (1), preoperative and postoperative digital image superimposition (4), radiographic platform for assessing canal transportation; histological analysis for assessing the presence of predentin, action of instruments on canal walls, and debris in the root canal lumen (5,6). These methods, however, have not enabled the comparison between pre-and post-preparation conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of RaCe Instrumentation System in Curved Root Canals: A Comprehensive Analysis by Three Study Methods

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, curved maxillary molar root canals were instrumented with RaCe rotary system to evaluate: 1. the occurrence of canal transportation using a radiographic platform; 2. the action of the instruments on the dentin walls, centering ability and canal enlargement by analysis of digital images; and the percentage of regular dentin surfaces and debris within the canal by histological analysis. Ten mesiobuccal roots of extracted human maxillary molars were embedded in acrylic resin and sectioned at the middle and apical thirds. Root canal shaping was performed using the RaCe rotary system at 250 rpm and 1 Ncm torque. Each instrument set was used five times according to a crowndown technique in the following sequence: 40/0.10, 35/0.08, 25/0.06, 25/0.04, 25/0.02 (working length -WL), 30/0.02 (WL) and 35/0.02 (WL). Each instrument was inserted until resistance was felt and then pulled back, followed by brushing movements towards all canal walls. Each specimen was assessed by three study methods: radiographic platform, digitized image assessment and histological analysis. The radiographic platform showed lack of apical transportation. No statistically significant difference (Wilcoxon test, p>0.05) was found between the middle and apical thirds regarding instrument action on dentin walls, centering ability, area of root canal enlargement, percentage of regular dentin surfaces and debris within the root canal. It may be concluded that RaCe system is a suitable method for the preparation of curved root canals, regarding the maintenance of root canal original path, action on dentin walls, canal enlargement and removal of debris from the root canal lumen.

show abstract

Evaluation of smear layer removal after use of a canal brush: an SEM study

Cited by 42 publications

References 18 publications

Effectiveness of a Canal Brush on Removing Smear Layer: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

Effectiveness of a Canal Brush on Removing Smear Layer: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

An in vitro Evaluation on a Novel Root Canal Cleansing Method by Using Nylon Fibers

Performance of RaCe Instrumentation System in Curved Root Canals: A Comprehensive Analysis by Three Study Methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About