Restor Dent Endod.  2017 Nov;42(4):324-331. 10.5395/rde.2017.42.4.324.

Smear layer removal by different chemical solutions used with or without ultrasonic activation after post preparation

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Restorative Dentistry, Londrina State University (UEL), Londrina, PR, Brazil.
  • 2Dentistry Course, Paranaense University, Cascavel, PR, Brazil.
  • 3Clinical Practice Limited to Esthetic Dentistry, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.
  • 4Clinical Practice Limited to Endodontics, Navegantes, SC, Brazil. ricardo.machado.endo@gmail.com
  • 5Department of Endodontics, São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of Dentistry, Araçatuba, SP, Brazil.
  • 6Department of Oral Medicine and Pediatric Dentistry, Londrina State University (UEL), Londrina, PR, Brazil.

Abstract


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.

Keyword

Solutions; Microscopy; Smear layer; Post and core technique; Ultrasonics

MeSH Terms

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

Figure

  • Figure 1 Representative images: (A) score 1; (B) score 2; (C) score 3.


Cited by  1 articles

Effect of irrigation protocols on smear layer removal, bond strength and nanoleakage of fiber posts using a self-adhesive resin cement
Rodrigo Stadler Alessi, Renata Terumi Jitumori, Bruna Fortes Bittencourt, Giovana Mongruel Gomes, João Carlos Gomes
Restor Dent Endod. 2023;48(3):e28.    doi: 10.5395/rde.2023.48.e28.


Reference

1. Kirkevang LL, Ørstavik D, Hörsted-Bindslev P, Wenzel A. Periapical status and quality of root fillings and coronal restorations in a Danish population. Int Endod J. 2000; 33:509–515.
Article
2. Hommez GM, Coppens CR, De Moor RJ. Periapical health related to the quality of coronal restorations and root fillings. Int Endod J. 2002; 35:680–689.
Article
3. Mohammadi Z, Jafarzadeh H, Shalavi S, Bhandi S, Kinoshita J. Resilon: Review of a new material for obturation of the canal. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2015; 16:407–414.
Article
4. Souza LC, Yadlapati M, Dorn SO, Silva R, Letra A. Analysis of radiopacity, pH and cytotoxicity of a new bioceramic material. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015; 23:383–389.
Article
5. Carvalho AO, Bruzi G, Anderson RE, Maia HP, Giannini M, Magne P. Influence of adhesive core buildup designs on the resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with lithium disilicate CAD/CAM crowns. Oper Dent. 2016; 41:76–82.
Article
6. Veríssimo C, Simamoto Júnior PC, Soares CJ, Noritomi PY, Santos-Filho PC. Effect of the crown, post, and remaining coronal dentin on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 111:234–246.
Article
7. Freedman GA. Esthetic post-and-core treatment. Dent Clin North Am. 2001; 45:103–116.
8. Goracci C, Ferrari M. Current perspectives on post systems: a literature review. Aust Dent J. 2011; 56:77–83.
Article
9. Calixto LR, Bandéca MC, Clavijo V, Andrade MF, Vaz LG, Campos EA. Effect of resin cement system and root region on the push-out bond strength of a translucent fiber post. Oper Dent. 2012; 37:80–86.
Article
10. Serafino C, Gallina G, Cumbo E, Ferrari M. Surface debris of canal walls after post space preparation in endodontically treated teeth: a scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 97:381–387.
Article
11. Baena E, Flores A, Ceballos L. Influence of root dentin treatment on the push-out bond strength of fiber posts. Odontology. 2017; 105:170–177.
Article
12. Violich DR, Chandler NP. The smear layer in endodontics - a review. Int Endod J. 2010; 43:2–15.
Article
13. Kuçi A, Alaçam T, Yavaş O, Ergul-Ulger Z, Kayaoglu G. Sealer penetration into dentinal tubules in the presence or absence of smear layer: a confocal laser scanning microscopic study. J Endod. 2014; 40:1627–1631.
Article
14. Scotti N, Rota R, Scansetti M, Migliaretti G, Pasqualini D, Berutti E. Fiber post adhesion to radicular dentin: The use of acid etching prior to a one-step self-etching adhesive. Quintessence Int. 2012; 43:615–623.
15. Kuah HG, Lui JN, Tseng PS, Chen NN. The effect of EDTA with and without ultrasonics on removal of the smear layer. J Endod. 2009; 35:393–396.
Article
16. Roy RA, Ahmad M, Crum LA. Physical mechanisms governing the hydrodynamic response of an oscillating ultrasonic file. Int Endod J. 1994; 27:197–207.
Article
17. Kato AS, Cunha RS, da Silveira Bueno CE, Pelegrine RA, Fontana CE, de Martin AS. Investigation of the efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation versus irrigation with reciprocating activation: An environmental scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2016; 42:659–663.
Article
18. Torabinejad M, Cho Y, Khademi AA, Bakland LK, Shabahang S. The effect of various concentrations of sodium hypochlorite on the ability of MTAD to remove the smear layer. J Endod. 2003; 29:233–239.
Article
19. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003; 28:215–235.
20. Boone KJ, Murchison DF, Schindler WG, Walker WA. Post retention: the effect of sequence of post-space preparation, cementation time, and different sealers. J Endod. 2001; 27:768–771.
Article
21. Lui JN, Kuah HG, Chen NN. Effect of EDTA with and without surfactants or ultrasonics on removal of smear layer. J Endod. 2007; 33:472–475.
Article
22. Poggio C, Dagna A, Chiesa M, Bianchi S, Arciola CR, Visai L, Giardino L. SEM evaluation of the root canal walls after treatment with Tetraclean. Int J Artif Organs. 2010; 33:660–666.
Article
23. Gu XH, Mao CY, Kern M. Effect of different irrigation on smear layer removal after post space preparation. J Endod. 2009; 35:583–586.
Article
24. de Vasconcelos BC, Luna-Cruz SM, De-Deus G, de Moraes IG, Maniglia-Ferreira C, Gurgel-Filho ED. Cleaning ability of chlorhexidine gel and sodium hypochlorite associated or not with EDTA as root canal irrigants: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007; 15:387–391.
Article
25. Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Qian W, Gao Y. Irrigation in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am. 2010; 54:291–312.
Article
26. Lo Giudice G, Lizio A, Giudice RL, Centofanti A, Rizzo G, Runci M, Alibrandi A, Cicciù M. The effect of different cleaning protocols on post space: a SEM study. Int J Dent. 2016; 2016:1907124.
Article
27. Mirseifinejad R, Tabrizizade M, Davari A, Mehravar F. Efficacy of different root canal irrigants on smear layer removal after post space preparation: a scanning electron microscopy evaluation. Iran Endod J. 2017; 12:185–190.
28. Choudhary K, Nandlal B. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of nano-hydroxyapatite incorporated glass ionomer cement and conventional glass ionomer cement on dense synthetic hydroxyapatite disk: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res. 2015; 26:170–175.
Article
29. Youm SH, Jung KH, Son SA, Kwon YH, Park JK. Effect of dentin pretreatment and curing mode on the microtensile bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015; 7:317–322.
Article
30. Mount GJ. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Glass-ionomer cements: past, present and future. Oper Dent. 1994; 19:82–90.
31. Vasiliadis L, Darling AI, Levers BG. The amount and distribution of sclerotic human root dentine. Arch Oral Biol. 1983; 28:645–649.
Article
32. Vasiliadis L, Darling AI, Levers BG. The histology of sclerotic human root dentine. Arch Oral Biol. 1983; 28:693–700.
Article
33. van der Sluis LW, Vogels MP, Verhaagen B, Macedo R, Wesselink PR. Study on the influence of refreshment/activation cycles and irrigants on mechanical cleaning efficiency during ultrasonic activation of the irrigant. J Endod. 2010; 36:737–740.
Article
34. Sabins RA, Johnson JD, Hellstein JW. A comparison of the cleaning efficacy of short-term sonic and ultrasonic passive irrigation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod. 2003; 29:674–678.
Article
Full Text Links
  • RDE
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr