English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of this study was to evaluate the smear layer removal ability of stainless steel and NiTi hand files as well as an orthodontic rectangular NiTi wire activated by an ultrasonic device. Methods: 50 palatal root canals of maxillary molars were preflared with a #35 LA Axxess bur at the cervical third and with ProTaper instrument, up to F4 instrument, within working length, at the apical third. The canals were irrigated with 1% sodium hypochlorite and divided into five groups for passive ultrasonic activation (PUI): GI = EDTA + 1 minute (PUI) with a stainless steel#15 K-file; GII = EDTA + 1 minute (PUI) with a NiTi #15 K-file; GIII = EDTA + 1 minute (PUI) with orthodontic NiTi 25 x 11 wire; GIV = EDTA for 3 minutes without PUI; GV = No EDTA and no PUI. Subsequently, each root was sectioned longitudinally and a hemisection was covered with a layer of metal and analyzed by a scanning electron microscope. Images of the three thirds were taken, stipulating scores as follows: 0 = no layer of dentin debris, clean and open dentinal tubules; 1 = moderate dentin debris layer; 2 = thick layer of dentin debris covering the surface of the dentinal tubules. The data for each score were compared statistically. Results: Smear layer was observed in all three thirds. All groups using EDTA differed statistically (p < 0.05) from the group without EDTA. There were no significant differences between the groups activated with ultrasound and the EDTA group without ultrasound. There were no significant differences (p < 0.05) among the three instruments employed. Conclusion: The use of EDTA favored smear layer removal. Activation of EDTA for one minute, regardless of the instrument used, favored cleaner dentin walls.

Influence of the type of instrument used in passive ultrasonic irrigation on the smear layer removal capacity