Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different irrigating methods in removing the smear layer at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex of endodontic canals. Methods: Sixty-five extracted single-rooted human mandibular premolars were decoronated to a standardized length of 16 mm. Specimens were shaped to ProTaper F4 (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl at 37 C. Teeth were divided into 5 groups (2 control groups [n = 10] and 3 test groups [n = 15]) according to the final irrigant activation/delivering technique (ie, sonic irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation [PUI], or apical negative pressure). Root canals were then split longitudinally and observed by field emission scanning electron microscopy. The presence of debris and a smear layer at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex was evaluated. Scores were analyzed by KruskalWallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: The EndoActivator System (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) was significantly more efficient than PUI and the control groups in removing the smear layer at 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. The EndoVac System (Discus Dental, Culver City, CA) removed statistically significantly more smear layer than all groups at 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. At 5 and 8 mm from the apex, PUI and the EndoVac did not differ statistically significantly, but both performed statistically better than the control groups. Conclusions: In our study, none of the activation/delivery systems completely removed the smear layer from the endodontic dentine walls; nevertheless, the EndoActivator and EndoVac showed the best results at 3, 5, and 8 mm (EndoActivator) and 1, 3, 5, and 8 mm (EndoVac) from the apex.

Introduction: This study compared the efficacy of BioPure MTAD (Dentsply Tulsa, Tulsa, OK), 17% EDTA, and 42% citric acid in endodontic smear layer removal and degree of erosion in the apical third of endodontic canals. Methods: Ninety-six extracted single-rooted human teeth were randomized into four groups (n = 24) and instrumented using System GT nickel-titanium rotary instruments (Dentsply Tulsa, Tulsa, OK). Each canal was irrigated with one of the following solutions: BioPure MTAD, 17% EDTA, 42% citric acid, or 5.25% NaOCl (control). Next, all specimens were irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl. Results: Evaluation by scanning electron microscopy showed no significant differences among test irrigants in removing the smear layer. However, the efficacy of BioPure MTAD and 17% EDTA in removing the smear layer was significantly greater than 5.25% NaOCl (control). The erosive effects of irrigating solutions could not be evaluated. Conclusions: In conclusion, the protocols used in this study were not sufficient to completely remove the smear layer in the apical third of prepared root canals. (J Endod 2009;35:900-903)

Objectives. The aim of this in vitro study was to assess thermal changes on tooth tissues during light exposure using two different LED curing units. The hypothesis was that no temperature increase could be detected within the dental pulp during polymerization irrespective of the use of a composite resin or a light-curing unit. Methods. Caries-free human first molars were selected, pulp residues were removed after root resection, and four calibrated type-J thermocouples were positioned. Two LED lamps were tested; temperature measurements were made on intact teeth and on the same tooth during curing of composite restorations. The data was analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Wilcoxon test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Pearson's χ 2. After ANOVA, the Bonferroni multiple comparison test was performed. Results. Polymerization data analysis showed that in the pulp chamber temperature increase was higher than that without resin. Starlight PRO, in the same condition of Valo lamp, showed a lower temperature increase in pre- and intrapolymerization. A control group (without composite resin) was evaluated. Significance. Temperature increase during resin curing is a function of the rate of polymerization, due to the exothermic polymerization reaction, the energy from the light unit, and time of exposure.

The aim of curing light technology has been the development of lights that would result in faster curing of resin composites and less heat generation (Aravamudhan et al., Dent Mater 2006). The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate thermal changes on the tooth structures during the exposure of two different light emitting diode curing units (LED)

No abstract