Light and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of Glyde™ File Prep in smear layer removal

Lim, T S; Wee, T. H.; Choi, Min-Ji; Koh, Wei-Ling; Sae‐Lim, Varawan

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00648.x

Cited by 41 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…16 Therefore, a combination of NaOCl and EDTA has been recommended to effectively remove both the organic tissues and inorganic smear layer. [17][18][19] All canals were prepared up to International Organization for Standardization # 25 which is in accordance with previous studies. 20 It is desirable to remove both debris and smear layer due to its potential deleterious effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy using Four Novel Nickel–titanium Rotary Instruments: An in vitro Scanning Electron Microscope Study

Kar

Khasnis

Kidiyoor

2017

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The aim of the study was to compare the cleaning efficacy (debris and smear layer removal) of two multifile rotary systems (MTwo and Silk) and two single-file rotary systems (F6 Skytaper and NeoNiTi). Materials and methods:Eighty mesial canals of mandibular first molars were cleaned and shaped using four nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary instruments to size # 25 and 3% NaOCl and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Samples were randomly divided into four equal groups (n = 20) according to instrumentation: Group I, Mtwo; group II, Silk; group III, F6 Skytaper; group IV, NeoNiTi. Samples were split longitudinally and examined under scanning electron microscope (SEM) for debris and smear layer removal in coronal, middle, and apical thirds of each root canal.Results: F6 skytaper and Mtwo groups showed significantly higher debris removal than Silk and NeoNiTi groups in apical third of root canal as well as when compared with NeoNiTi group in middle third. F6 Skytaper group showed significantly higher debris and smear layer removal than Silk group in coronal third. There was statistically significant difference among all thirds of root canal in terms of debris removal in Silk and NeoNiTi groups. There was statistically significant difference among all thirds of root canal in F6 Skytaper and NeoNiTi groups in terms of smear layer removal. Conclusion: F6 Skytaper single-file rotary instrumentationshowed the maximum cleaning efficacy followed by Mtwo multifile rotary instrumentation in all thirds of root canal. Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy using Four

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy using Four Novel Nickel–titanium Rotary Instruments: An in vitro Scanning Electron Microscope Study

Kar

Khasnis

Kidiyoor

2017

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…En otro estudio [19] encontraron que el Glyde utilizado con NaOCL al 5,25% fue significativamente más efectivo en la remoción del barro dentinario que el hipoclorito de sodio por sí solo. En nuestro estudio se verificó que todos los agentes quelantes se comportaron mejor que el grupo control en el cual solo se utilizó hipoclorito de sodio.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Comparación in vitro de la capacidad de remoción del barrillo dentinario con rc-prep (Premier), glyde (Dentsply), kelfar (Eufar), durante la limpieza y conformación de los conductos radicales

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción: en la terapia endodóntica, los agentes quelantes aparecen como productos auxiliares durante el proceso de conformación de los conductos radiculares como lubricantes y coadyuvantes en la remoción del barro dentinario. El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar la efectividad de tres agentes quelantes RC-Prep, Glyde, Kelfar, para la remoción del barrillo dentinario en 40 pre molares unirradiculares sanos. Métodos: se decoronaron 40 muestras de dientes unirradiculares para posteriormente realizar la limpieza y conformación de cada conducto radicular y se dividieron en cuatro grupos. El grupo 1 estuvo compuesto por dientes preparados con RC-Prep; el grupo 2 con Glyde; el grupo 3 se preparó con Kelfar y el grupo 4 fue el de control. Fueron irrigados entre lima y lima con 2 ml de hipoclorito de sodio al 5,25%. Luego se secaron con puntas de papel y se cortaron longitudinalmente para ser evaluados por microscopio electrónico de barrido. Resultados: no hubo diferencia estadísticamente significativa, excepto en el tercio apical de los dientes tratados con Glyde. Conclusiones: Glyde mostró mejor comportamiento respecto al RC-Prep y Kelfar. Aunque no existió dif rencia estadísticamente significativa, es importante utilizar un agente quelante líquido para mejorar la limpieza de barrillo dentinario.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.16925/od.v10i18.722

show abstract

“…Although the use of antibacterial irrigants is recommended in combination with chelating agents in order to remove debris as well as the inorganic/ organic smear layer,[1215–18] NaOCl and EDTA were used as irrigants in the present study. NaOCl would appear as the best available canal irrigant because of its antibacterial and organic tissue-dissolving properties,[1920] but it is not possible to remove the smear layer with NaOCl.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation of surface characteristics of dentinal walls with and without using plastic finishing file

Singh

Nigam

2010

J Conserv Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The aim of this in vitro research is to evaluate the debris present on the dentinal walls after instrumentation in mesiobuccal root of maxillary molar with Hand Protapers, Hand Profiles, Hand Hero Shapers, and finishing the dentinal walls with and without rotary plastic files using stereomicroscope.Materials and Methods:Sixty freshly extracted human maxillary first molar teeth were divided into two groups of 30 teeth each (group A and B). Both the groups were divided into three subgroups of 10 teeth each (group A had subgroups A1, A2, and A3) and (group B had subgroups B1, B2 and B3). In group A, all the 30 canals were subjected to cleaning and shaping with three different instruments system and kept unfinished. This group was named as unfinished group. In group B, all the 30 canals were subjected to cleaning and shaping with three different instruments system followed by finishing with plastic files. This group was named as finished group. The crown of each tooth was sectioned at the cementoenamel junction. Canals were prepared following conventional principles of crown down technique. After splitting the roots longitudinally, the dentinal debris of each root canal was evaluated in three areas (coronal, middle and apical thirds of the root) by means of numerical evaluation scale, using a stereomicroscope.Results:Stereomicroscopic evaluations showed that there was no significant difference in the debris scores between the subgroups when the canals were instrumented with hand Protaper, hand Profile and hand Hero Shaper in all the thirds. There was no significant difference in scores between the unfinished group and the finished group in the coronal third but significant differences were seen in middle third and apical third.Conclusions:After instrumentation with different hand instruments, the use of plastic finishing files showed cleaner canal walls.

show abstract

Light and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of Glyde™ File Prep in smear layer removal

Abstract: Used in conjunction with NaOCl irrigation, Glyde File Prep was effective in removing smear layer produced during root canal instrumentation.

Cited by 41 publications

References 34 publications

Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy using Four Novel Nickel–titanium Rotary Instruments: An in vitro Scanning Electron Microscope Study

Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy using Four Novel Nickel–titanium Rotary Instruments: An in vitro Scanning Electron Microscope Study

Comparación in vitro de la capacidad de remoción del barrillo dentinario con rc-prep (Premier), glyde (Dentsply), kelfar (Eufar), durante la limpieza y conformación de los conductos radicales

Comparative evaluation of surface characteristics of dentinal walls with and without using plastic finishing file

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About