Cargando…
Smear layer removal by different chemical solutions used with or without ultrasonic activation after post preparation
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5682149/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29142881 http://dx.doi.org/10.5395/rde.2017.42.4.324 |
Sumario: | 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. |
---|