Smear layer removal by different chemical solutions used with or without ultrasonic activation after post preparation.
10.5395/rde.2017.42.4.324
- Author:
Daniel POLETTO
1
;
Ana Claudia POLETTO
;
Andressa CAVALARO
;
Ricardo MACHADO
;
Leopoldo COSME-SILVA
;
Cássia Cilene Dezan GARBELINI
;
Márcio Grama HOEPPNER
Author Information
1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Londrina State University (UEL), Londrina, PR, Brazil.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Solutions;
Microscopy;
Smear layer;
Post and core technique;
Ultrasonics
- MeSH:
Bicuspid;
Chlorhexidine;
Edetic Acid;
Humans;
Methods;
Microscopy;
Post and Core Technique;
Smear Layer*;
Sodium Chloride;
Sodium Hypochlorite;
Ultrasonics*
- From:Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics
2017;42(4):324-331
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated smear layer removal by different chemical solutions used with or without ultrasonic activation after post preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five extracted uniradicular human mandibular premolars with single canals were treated endodontically. The cervical and middle thirds of the fillings were then removed, and the specimens were divided into 9 groups: G1, saline solution (NaCl); G2, 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); G3, 2% chlorhexidine (CHX); G4, 11.5% polyacrylic acid (PAA); G5, 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). For the groups 6, 7, 8, and 9, the same solutions used in the groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 were used, respectively, but activated with ultrasonic activation. Afterwards, the roots were analyzed by a score considering the images obtained from a scanning electron microscope. RESULTS: EDTA achieved the best performance compared with the other solutions evaluated regardless of the irrigation method (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonic activation did not significantly influence smear layer removal.
