Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, EndoVac, and Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation) : Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation in an In Vitro Study.

摘要

AbstractudIntroduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluateudthe effectiveness of different irrigating methods inudremoving the smear layer at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm fromudthe apex of endodontic canals. Methods: Sixty-five extractedudsingle-rooted human mandibular premolarsudwere decoronated to a standardized length of 16 mm.udSpecimens were shaped to ProTaper F4 (Dentsply Maillefer,udBallaigues, Switzerland) and irrigated with 5.25%udNaOCl at 37 C. Teeth were divided into 5 groupsud(2 control groups [n = 10] and 3 test groups [n = 15])udaccording to the final irrigant activation/delivering techniqueud(ie, sonic irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigationud[PUI], or apical negative pressure). Root canals wereudthen split longitudinally and observed by field emissionudscanning electron microscopy. The presence of debrisudand a smear layer at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apexudwas evaluated. Scores were analyzed by Kruskal-udWallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: The EndoActivatorudSystem (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties,udTulsa, OK) was significantly more efficient than PUIudand the control groups in removing the smear layer atud3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. The EndoVac Systemud(Discus Dental, Culver City, CA) removed statisticallyudsignificantly more smear layer than all groups at 1, 3,ud5, and 8 mm from the apex. At 5 and 8 mm from theudapex, PUI and the EndoVac did not differ statisticallyudsignificantly, but both performed statistically betterudthan the control groups. Conclusions: In our study,udnone of the activation/delivery systems completelyudremoved the smear layer from the endodontic dentineudwalls; nevertheless, the EndoActivator and EndoVacudshowed the best results at 3, 5, and 8 mm (EndoActivator)udand 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm (EndoVac) from theudapex. (J Endod 2013;39:1456–1460)