A comparative SEM assessment for the ability of PIPS, XP-Finisher and PUI to eliminate smear layer and open dentinal tubules | ||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||
| Article 18, Volume 68, Issue 2 - Serial Number 5, April 2022, Pages 1937-1943 PDF (982.33 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2022.117395.1956 | ||
| Authors | ||
| maram Obeid* 1; elham elshaboury2; raneem obeid3 | ||
| 1Associate Professor, Department of Endodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. | ||
| 2Associate Professor, Department of Endodontic, Faculty of Dentistry, Modern science and arts – MSA Egypt. | ||
| 3Associate Professor of Oral Biology, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Future University, Cairo, Egypt. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Aim: This study aimed to assess the removal of smear layer from the dentinal surfaces after canal cleaning and irrigants activation with different systems (Conventional needle irrigation, PUI, PIPS, XP-Finisher). Methodology: Seventy human single rooted maxillary incisors were instrumented up to X5 (50/6) Protaper Next rotary system. The irrigation activation was performed using either: PIPS, PUI, XP-Finisher, or conventional irrigation. Samples were cut lengthwise, then examined under a scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed with Kruskal- Wallis test. Significant difference between the groups was recorded statistically in the total scores of the smear layer on dentinal wall (P<0.05). Results: PIPS and XP-Finisher groups showed more smear layer removal than the conventional and PUI groups and this was statistically significant (P<0.05). This was clearly presented by opened dentinal tubules in photomicrograph of SEM. Conclusion: With the constraints of this in vitro study, PIPS and XP-Finisher are better in eliminating smear layer from dentinal walls. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| PIPS; PUI; XP-Finisher; irrigation; SEM | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 436 PDF Download: 303 |
||
