Premium
Debris and smear removal in flattened root canals after use of different irrigant agitation protocols
Author(s) -
Ribeiro Eduardo Milani,
SilvaSousa Yara T.C.,
SouzaGabriel Aline Evangelista,
SousaNeto Manoel DamiÃO,
Lorencetti Karina Torales,
Silva Silvio Rocha Correa
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
microscopy research and technique
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.536
H-Index - 118
eISSN - 1097-0029
pISSN - 1059-910X
DOI - 10.1002/jemt.21125
Subject(s) - smear layer , debris , dentistry , root canal , irrigation , medicine , materials science , geology , biology , ecology , oceanography
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) can be used to analyze the presence of debris and smear layer on the internal walls of root canal. This study evaluated the debris and smear removal in flattened root canals using SEM after use of different irrigant agitation protocols. Fifty mandibular incisors were distributed into five groups ( n = 10) according to the irrigant agitation protocol used during chemomechanical preparation: conventional syringe irrigation with NaviTip needle (no activation), active scrubbing of irrigant with brush‐covered NaviTip FX needle, manual dynamic irrigation, continuous passive ultrasonic irrigation, and apical negative pressure irrigation (EndoVac system). Canals were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl at each change of instrument and received a final flush with 17% EDTA for 1 min. After instrumentation, the roots were split longitudinally and SEM micrographs at ×100 and ×1,000 were taken to evaluate the amount of debris and smear layer, respectively, in each third. Data were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn's post‐hoc tests (α = 5%). Manual dynamic activation left significantly ( p < 0.05) more debris inside the canals than the other protocols, while ultrasonic irrigation and EndoVac were the most effective ( p < 0.05) for debris removal. Regarding the removal of smear layer, there was no statistically significant difference ( p > 0.05) either among the irrigant agitation protocols or between the protocol–canal third interactions. Although none of the irrigant agitation protocols completely removed debris and smear layer from flattened root canals, the machine‐assisted agitation systems (ultrasound and EndoVac) removed more debris than the manual techniques. Microsc. Res. Tech. 75:781–790, 2012. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.