Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluation of SmearOFF, maleic acid and two EDTA preparations in smear layer removal from root canal dentin.
Ballal, Nidambur Vasudev; Jain, Himanshu; Rao, Sheetal; Johnson, Alexander D; Baeten, John; Wolcott, James F.
Affiliation
  • Ballal NV; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, India.
  • Jain H; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, India.
  • Rao S; Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, India.
  • Johnson AD; Vista Dental Products, Inter-Med Inc, Racine, WI, USA.
  • Baeten J; Vista Dental Products, Inter-Med Inc, Racine, WI, USA.
  • Wolcott JF; Private Practice, Santa Fe, NM, USA.
Acta Odontol Scand ; 77(1): 28-32, 2019 Jan.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30387687
ABSTRACT

Objectives:

To evaluate SmearOFF, 7% maleic acid (MA) and two different preparations of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in smear layer removal.Materials and

methods:

Fifty single-rooted teeth were separated into five groups, instrumented and irrigated as follows (1) SmearOFF, (2) 7% MA, (3) 18% EDTA (pH 11.4), (4) 17% EDTA (pH 8.5) and (5) 0.9% saline. Teeth samples were blinded and examined by scanning electron microscopy with Image J software.

Results:

Eighteen percent EDTA was less efficient when compared to SmearOFF and MA at all thirds of the root canal system. There was no difference between SmearOFF and MA in the coronal and middle thirds. In the apical third, MA removed more smear layer. Seventeen percent EDTA was as efficient as SmearOFF and MA in coronal and middle third but not in the apical third. Eighteen percent EDTA removed smear layer less efficiently in the coronal and middle thirds than 17% EDTA; in the apical third, there was no difference observed. In the saline group, all specimens were heavily smeared. There was no significant difference between 18% EDTA and saline at all canal thirds.

Conclusions:

SmearOFF and 17% EDTA (pH 8.5) had better smear layer removal capability in the coronal and middle thirds of the root canal system. In the apical third, 7% MA was superior. 18% EDTA (pH 11.4) and saline had poor smear layer removal ability.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Root Canal Irrigants / Smear Layer / Edetic Acid / Root Canal Preparation / Dental Pulp Cavity / Maleates Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Acta Odontol Scand Year: 2019 Document type: Article Affiliation country: India Country of publication: ENGLAND / ESCOCIA / GB / GREAT BRITAIN / INGLATERRA / REINO UNIDO / SCOTLAND / UK / UNITED KINGDOM

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Root Canal Irrigants / Smear Layer / Edetic Acid / Root Canal Preparation / Dental Pulp Cavity / Maleates Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Acta Odontol Scand Year: 2019 Document type: Article Affiliation country: India Country of publication: ENGLAND / ESCOCIA / GB / GREAT BRITAIN / INGLATERRA / REINO UNIDO / SCOTLAND / UK / UNITED KINGDOM