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)

Growth factors (GFs) play a vital role in cell proliferation, migration, differentiation and angiogenesis. Autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) which contain high levels of GFs make them especially suitable for periodontal regeneration and facial rejuvenation. The main generations of APCs presented are platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) and concentrated growth factor (CGF) techniques. The purpose of this review is to provide the clinician with an overview of APCs’ evolution over the past decade in order to give reliable and useful information to be used in clinical work. This review summarizes the most interesting and novel articles published between 1997 and 2020. Electronic and manual searches were conducted in the following databases: Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Embase. The following keywords were used: growth factors, VEGF, TGF-b1, PRP, PRF, CGF and periodontal regeneration and/or facial rejuvenation. A total of 73 articles were finally included. The review then addresses the uses of the three different techniques in the two disciplines, as well as the advantages and limitations of each technique. Overall, PRP is mainly used in cases of hard and soft tissue procedures, while PRF is used in gingival recession and the treatment of furcation and intrabony defects; CGF is mainly used in bone regeneration.

No abstract

No abstract