Ahmetoglu Fuat, Keles Ali, Yalcin Muhammet, Simsek Neslihan
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Inonu University, Malatya, Turkiye.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Inonu University, Malatya, Turkiye.
Eur J Dent. 2014 Jan;8(1):53-57. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.126241.
To evaluate effectiveness of the apical negative pressure irrigation (EndoVac), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and conventional needle irrigation (CI) systems on smear layer (SR) removal.
Sixty single-rooted canines were prepared using NiTi rotary files and subjected to different irrigation regimens: EndoVac with NaOCl (Group 1) or NaOCl/EDTA (Group 2); PUI with NaOCl (Group 3) or NaOCl/EDTA (Group 4); CI with NaOCl (Group 5) or NaOCl/EDTA (Group 6). The roots were split longitudinally. SEM images were taken to evaluate the amount of residual SR.
In Groups 1, 3, and 5, there was no removal of SR (P > 0.05). The coronal thirds within Groups 2, 4, and 6 were cleaned completely, but the middle and the apical thirds was achieved partially or completely (P > 0.05).
Regardless of which irrigation system was used, the use of NaOCl alone failed to remove the SR. In NaOCl/EDTA combination groups, the SR was removed partially or completely and no statistical significance. This study demonstrated that in order to remove the SR should be used EDTA solution for final irrigation in the root canal, regardless of the technique in each of the three.
评估根尖负压冲洗（EndoVac）、被动超声冲洗（PUI）和传统针管冲洗（CI）系统对玷污层（SR）去除的效果。
使用镍钛旋转锉对60颗单根犬牙进行预备，并采用不同的冲洗方案：EndoVac联合次氯酸钠（NaOCl）（第1组）或次氯酸钠/乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）（第2组）；PUI联合次氯酸钠（第3组）或次氯酸钠/乙二胺四乙酸（第4组）；CI联合次氯酸钠（第5组）或次氯酸钠/乙二胺四乙酸（第6组）。将牙根纵向劈开。拍摄扫描电镜图像以评估残留SR的量。
在第1、3和5组中，未能去除SR（P>0.05）。第2、4和6组的冠方三分之一被完全清洁，但中部和根尖三分之一被部分或完全清洁（P>0.05）。
无论使用哪种冲洗系统，单独使用次氯酸钠均未能去除SR。在次氯酸钠/乙二胺四乙酸联合组中，SR被部分或完全去除，且无统计学意义。本研究表明，为了去除SR，无论三种技术中的哪一种，在根管最终冲洗时均应使用EDTA溶液。
