Machado Ricardo, da Silva Isadora, Comparin Daniel, de Mattos Bianca Araujo Marques, Alberton Luiz Rômulo, da Silva Neto Ulisses Xavier
Department of Endodontics, Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná - PUCPR, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
Department of Endodontics, Paranaense University - UNIPAR, Francisco Beltrão, Paraná, Brazil.
Restor Dent Endod. 2021 Jan 26;46(1):e11. doi: 10.5395/rde.2021.46.e11. eCollection 2021 Feb.
The aim of this study was to compare smear layer removal by conventional application (CA), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), EasyClean (EC), and XP-Endo Finisher (XPF), using 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) after chemomechanical preparation, as evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Forty-five single-rooted human mandibular premolars were selected for this study. After chemomechanical preparation, the teeth were randomly divided into 5 groups according to the protocol for smear layer removal, as follows: G1 (control): CA of distilled water; G2 (CA): CA of 17% EDTA; G3 (PUI): 17% EDTA activated by PUI; G4 (EC): 17% EDTA activated by EC; and G5 (XPF): 17% EDTA activated by XPF. SEM images (×1,000) were obtained from each root third and scored by 3 examiners. Data were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests ( < 0.05).
In the apical third, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups ( > 0.05). In the cervical and middle thirds, the experimental groups performed better than the control group ( < 0.05); however, G2 presented better results than G3, G4, and G5 ( < 0.05), which showed no differences among one another ( > 0.05).
No irrigation method was able to completely remove the smear layer, especially in the apical third. Using CA for the chelating solution performed better than any form of activation.
本研究旨在比较在化学机械预备后，使用扫描电子显微镜（SEM）评估，常规应用（CA）、被动超声冲洗（PUI）、EasyClean（EC）和XP-Endo Finisher（XPF）这几种方式去除玷污层的效果，冲洗剂为17%乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）。
本研究选取了45颗单根的人下颌前磨牙。化学机械预备后，根据玷污层去除方案将牙齿随机分为5组，如下：G1（对照组）：用蒸馏水进行常规应用；G2（CA组）：用17% EDTA进行常规应用；G3（PUI组）：通过PUI激活17% EDTA；G4（EC组）：通过EC激活17% EDTA；G5（XPF组）：通过XPF激活17% EDTA。从每个牙根的三分之一处获取SEM图像（×1000），由3名检查者进行评分。使用Kruskal-Wallis和Dunn检验对数据进行评估（P<0.05）。
在根尖三分之一处，各组之间无统计学显著差异（P>0.05）。在颈段和中段三分之一处，实验组的表现优于对照组（P<0.05）；然而，G2组的结果优于G3、G4和G5组（P<0.05），G3、G4和G5组之间无差异（P>0.05）。
没有一种冲洗方法能够完全去除玷污层，尤其是在根尖三分之一处。使用常规应用方式应用螯合溶液的效果优于任何形式的激活方式。
