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.
Bicuspid ; Chlorhexidine ; Edetic Acid ; Humans ; Methods ; Microscopy ; Post and Core Technique ; Smear Layer* ; Sodium Chloride ; Sodium Hypochlorite ; Ultrasonics*

Background/Aims: Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) are widely adopted for the palliation of dysphagia in patients with malignant esophageal strictures. An important adverse event is the development of SEMS-induced esophagorespiratory fistulas (SEMS-ERFs). This study aimed to assess the risk factors related to the development of SEMS-ERF after SEMS placement in patients with esophageal cancer. Methods: This retrospective study was performed at the Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo. All patients with malignant esophageal strictures who underwent esophageal SEMS placement between 2009 and 2019 were included in the study. Results: Of the 335 patients, 37 (11.0%) developed SEMS-ERF, with a median time of 129 days after SEMS placement. Stent flare of 28 mm (hazard ratio [HR], 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15–5.51; p=0.02) and post-stent chemotherapy (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.01–4.00; p=0.05) were associated with an increased risk of developing SEMS-ERF, while lower-third tumors were a protective factor (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.26–0.85; p=0.01). No difference was observed in overall survival. Conclusions The incidence of SEMS-ERFs was 11%, with a median time of 129 days after SEMS placement. Post-stent chemotherapy and a 28 mm stent flare were associated with a higher risk of SEMS-ERF.