Premium
Effect of the root canal final rinse protocols on the debris and smear layer removal and on the push‐out strength of an epoxy‐based sealer
Author(s) -
ArandaGarcia Arturo Javier,
Kuga Milton Carlos,
Vitorino Keli Regina,
ChávezAndrade Gisselle Moraima,
Hungaro Duarte Marco Antonio,
BonettiFilho Idomeo,
Faria Gisele,
Reis Só Marcus Vinicius
Publication year - 2013
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.22196
Subject(s) - smear layer , bond strength , distilled water , root canal , dentistry , scanning electron microscope , negative control , epoxy , materials science , positive control , layer (electronics) , chemistry , composite material , medicine , chromatography , traditional medicine , adhesive
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of QMiX, SmearClear, and 17% EDTA for the debris and smear layer removal from the root canal and its effects on the push‐out bond strength of an epoxy‐based sealer by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Forty extracted human canines ( n = 10) were assigned to the following final rinse protocols: G1‐distilled water (control), G2–17% EDTA, G3‐SmearClear, and G4‐QMiX. The specimens were submitted to a SEM analysis to evaluate the presence of debris and smear layer, respectively, in the apical or cervical segments. In sequence, forty extracted human maxillary canines with the root canals instrumented were divided into four groups ( n = 10) similar to the SEM analysis study. After the filling with AH Plus, the roots were transversally sectioned to obtain dentinal slices. The specimens were submitted to a push‐out bond strength test using an electromechanical testing machine. The statistical analysis for the SEM and push‐out bond strength studies were performed using the Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn tests ( α = 5%). There was no difference among the G2, G3, and G4 efficacy in removing the debris and smear layer ( P > 0.05). The efficacy of these groups was superior to the control group. The push‐out bond strength values of G2, G3, and G4 were superior to the control group. The ability to remove the debris and smear layer by SmearClear and QMiX was as effective as the 17% EDTA. The final rinse with these solutions promoted similar push‐out bond strength values. Microsc. Res. Tech. 76:533–537, 2013 . © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.