Scanning Electron Microscopic Preliminary Study of the Efficacy of SmearClear and EDTA for Smear Layer Removal after Root Canal Instrumentation in Permanent Teeth

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of SmearClear (SybronEndo, Orange, CA) and EDTA for smear layer removal from root canals of permanent teeth after instrumentation. Thirty extracted human permanent teeth (n = 10) were randomly assigned to the following groups: group 1 = 14.3% EDTA, group 2 = SmearClear, and group 3 = no smear layer removal procedure was undertaken (control). The specimens were submitted to scanning electron microscopy analysis. Magnifications of 200x and 750x were used to evaluate cleaning at the apical, middle, and cervical thirds according to a three-point scoring system. Data were analyzed statistically by the Mann-Whitney U test (5% significance level). Groups 1 and 2 differed significantly from group 3 (p < 0.01). However, there was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) between groups 1 and 2. In conclusion, SmearClear was able to remove the smear layer from the root canals of permanent teeth similarly as 14.3% EDTA, suggesting that both solutions may be indicated for such purpose. (J Endod 2008,34:1541-1544)

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

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. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Effect of final irrigation protocols on microhardness and erosion of root canal dentin

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of final irrigation protocols (17% EDTA, BioPure MTAD, SmearClear, and QMiX) on microhardness and erosion of root canal dentin. Fifty roots were sectioned transversely at the cement-enamel junction and each root was sectioned horizontally into 4-mm-thick slices. The samples were divided into five groups (n=10) according to the final irrigation protocol: G1: distilled water (control group); G2: 17% EDTA; G3: BioPure MTAD; G4: SmearClear; and G5: QMiX. The dentin microhardness was then measured with a load of 25 g for 10 s. Initially, the reference microhardness values were obtained for the samples without any etching. The same samples were then submitted to the final irrigation protocols. A new measure was realized and the difference between before and after the procedures was the dentin microhardness reduction. In sequence, the specimens were submitted to SEM analysis to verify the dentinal erosion. The Kruskal Wallis and Dunn tests (α=5%) were used to compare the results. The dentin microhardness decreased for all final irrigation protocols. There was no significant difference between groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 (P>0.05), but this groups presented significant dentin microhardness reduction than G1 (P<0.05). In G2, occurred the highest incidence of dentinal erosion (P<0.05). 17% EDTA, BioPure MTAD, SmearClear, and QMiX promoted significant dentin microhardness reduction. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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

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.