Gonçalves Bruna Fernanda Alionço, Reddy Divya, Machado Ricardo, Soares Júunior Paulo César, Ignácio Sérgio Aparecido, Fernandes Couto Douglas Augusto, Frasquetti Karine Santos, Ditzel Westphalen Vânia Portela, Carneiro Everdan, Silva Neto Ulisses Xavier da
Department of Endodontics, School of Health and Biosciences, Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná -PUC/PR, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
Advanced Standing for International Dentist Program-ASPID Program, Health Sciences Center, College of Dentistry, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2024 Dec 27;19(12):e0314940. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314940. eCollection 2024.
This study evaluated the smear layer removal provided by conventional, sonic, and ultrasonic irrigation techniques.
Forty extracted human mandibular first premolars were selected and instrumented using the ProTaper Next System files and 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. Afterward, they were divided into 4 groups (n. 10) according to the irrigation technique used to perform the final irrigation with a chelating solution (17% EDTA): conventional irrigation (CI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), EndoActivator System (EAS), and Perfect Clean System (PCS). The smear layer removal was determined through a score after evaluating scanning electron microscope images (1.000x) obtained at 1, 5, 8, and 12mm from the working length (WL). Statistical analyses were carried out by the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests with a significance level of 5% (P < 0.05).
All irrigation techniques were unable to promote an effective smear layer removal at 1mm from the WL in comparison with the other locations (P < .05). At 5, 8, and 12mm from the WL, no statistically significant differences were observed among CI, PUI, EAS, and PCS (P > 0.05). At 12mm from the WL, statistically significant differences were only identified after comparing PCS and CI (P < .05).
The smear layer removal was only efficient at 5, 8, and 12 from the WL with no significant statistical differences among CI, PUI, EAS, and PCS (P > 0.05).
本研究评估了传统、声波和超声波冲洗技术去除玷污层的效果。
选取40颗拔除的人类下颌第一前磨牙,使用ProTaper Next系统锉和2.5%次氯酸钠进行预备。之后,根据用于用螯合溶液(17%乙二胺四乙酸)进行最终冲洗的冲洗技术,将它们分为4组(每组10颗):传统冲洗(CI)、被动超声波冲洗(PUI)、EndoActivator系统(EAS)和Perfect Clean系统(PCS)。通过对在距工作长度(WL)1、5、8和12毫米处获得的扫描电子显微镜图像(1000倍)进行评估后打分来确定玷污层的去除情况。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验和Dunn检验进行统计分析,显著性水平为5%(P < 0.05)。
与其他位置相比,所有冲洗技术在距WL 1毫米处均无法有效去除玷污层(P < 0.05)。在距WL 5、8和12毫米处,CI、PUI、EAS和PCS之间未观察到统计学上的显著差异(P > 0.05)。在距WL 12毫米处,仅在比较PCS和CI后发现有统计学上的显著差异(P < 0.05)。
在距WL 5、8和12毫米处,玷污层的去除才有效,CI、PUI、EAS和PCS之间无显著统计学差异(P > 0.05)。