FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal using different irrigant activation methods (EndoActivator, EndoVac, PUI and LAI). An in vitro study

Abstract

              <span> 
                </span><h3>Objectives</h3> 
                <p>This study was to compare the efficacy of EndoActivator, EndoVac, PUI, and LAI methods in removing the smear layer from root canals.</p> 

              <span> 
                </span><h3>Materials and methods</h3> 
                <p>Eighty single-rooted mandibular premolars were decoronated to a standardized length of 15 mm. Specimens were shaped to ProTaper F4 (Dentsply Maillefer) and irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl at 37 °C. Teeth were divided into six groups (two control groups [<em>n</em> = 10] and four test groups [<em>n</em> = 15]) according to the final irrigation activation/delivering technique (sonic irrigation [EndoActivator], passive ultrasonic irrigation [PUI], negative apical pressure [EndoVac], and laser activated irrigation [LAI]). Root canals were then split longitudinally and observed with field emission scanning electron microscopy to evaluate the presence of smear layer at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. Scores were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.</p> 

              <span> 
                </span><h3>Results</h3> 
                <p>The EndoActivator was significantly more efficient than PUI, LAI, and control groups in removing the smear layer at 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. The EndoVac System removed statistically significantly more smear layer than all groups at 1 mm from the apex. At 5 mm from the apex, EndoActivator and EndoVac removed more smear layer than LAI and control groups. At 5 and 8 mm from the apex, PUI and EndoVac did not differ statistically, but both performed statistically better than the control groups.</p> 

              <span> 
                </span><h3>Conclusion</h3> 
                <p>In our study, none of the activation/delivery systems completely removed the smear layer from the root canal walls; nevertheless, EV and EA showed, respectively, statistically significant better results at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm and 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex.</p> 
              <br /><br />

http://ift.tt/2tlNuCs

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s