SMEAR LAYER REDUCTION IN ROOT CANALS PREPARED WITH TRIANGULAR AND RECTANGULAR FILES AS EVALUATED BY SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY
Objective: Root canal preparation procedures can produce a smear layer when in contact with the root canal wall, which can result in treatment
failure. As such, the cross-section shape of the file may influence the production of smear layer. In this study, we compared the smear layer production
at the apical third of the root canal wall between files with a triangular or rectangular cross-section shape.
Methods: Thirty-two human premolar samples taken from mandibles were divided into two groups whose root canals were prepared using files
with either a triangular (One Curve®, n=16) or rectangular (Hyflex EDM®, n=16) cross-section shape. After preparation, the root canals were irrigated
with a combination of 2.5% NaOCl and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). The smear layers in the apical third of the root canal walls were
observed using a scanning electron microscope and quantified according to the Foschi scoring system.
Results: The Mann–Whitney U-test revealed a significant difference between root canal preparations using the different file shapes. The group
prepared with the triangular file produced lower smear layer scores compared with the group prepared with the rectangular file.
Conclusion: Root canal preparations using files with different cross-section shapes (e.g., triangular and rectangular), followed by irrigation with 2.5%
NaOCl and 17% EDTA, produced smear layers in the apical third area. However, root canal preparations using files with a triangular cross-section
shape were shown to reduce smear layer production compared with files with a rectangular cross-section shape
Quintessence Publishing; 2011. p. 236-84.
2. Silveira LF, Silveira CF, Martos J, de Castro LA. Evaluation of the
different irrigation regimens with sodium hypochlorite and EDTA in
removing the smear layer during root canal preparation. J Microsc
3. Violich DR, Chandler NP. The smear layer in endodontics-a review. Int
Endod J 2010;43:2-15.
4. Foschi F, Nucci C, Montebugnoli L, Marchionni S, Breschi L,
Malagnino VA, et al. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following
use of M two and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J
5. Ricucci D, Siqueira JF Jr. Fate of the tissue in lateral canals and apical
Int J App Pharm, Vol 12, Special Issue 2, 2020
procedures. J Endod 2010;36:1-15.
6. Hülsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PM. Mechanical preparation of root
canals: Shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Top 2005;10:30-76.
7. Bertrand MF, Pizzardini P, Muller M, Médioni E, Rocca JP. The
removal of the smear layer using the quantec system: A study using the
scanning electron microscope. Int Endod J 1999;32:217-24.
8. Jeon I, Spångberg LS, Yoon T, Kazemi RB, Kum K. Smear layer
production by 3 rotary reamers with different cutting blade designs in
straight root canals: A scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg
Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontol 2003;96:601-7.
9. Sharma P, Goel M, Verma S, Sachdeva GS, Sharma N, Kumar V.
Entering a new era in endodontics with revolutionary single file
systems: A comprehensive review. EC Dent Sci 2016;3:1100-22.
10. Gaur AS, Gaur SS. Statistical Methods for Practice and Research:
A Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS. 2nd ed. New Delhi: SAGE
Publication; 2009. p. 91-8.
11. Young GR, Parashos P, Messer HH. The principles of techniques for
cleaning root canals. Aust Dent J Suppl 2007;52:52-63.
12. Pirani C, Buonavoglia A, Cirulli PP, Baroni C, Chersoni S. The effect
of the NRT files instrumentation on the quality of the surface of the root
canal wall. J Appl Biomater Funct 2012;10:136-40.
13. Tay FR, Gu L, Schoeffel GJ, Wimmer C, Susin L, Zhang K, et al. Effect
of vapor lock on root canal debridement by using a side-vented needle
for positive-pressure irrigant delivery. J Endod 2010;36:745-50.
14. Plotino G, Özyürek T, Grande NM, Gündo?ar M. Influence of size
and taper of basic root canal preparation on root canal cleanliness: A
scanning electron microscopy study. Int Endod J 2019;52:343-51.
15. Sanghvi Z, Mistry K. Design features of rotary instruments in
endodontics. J Ahmedabad Dent Coll Hosp 2011;2:6-11.
16. Metzger Z, Basrani B, Goodis HE. Instruments, materials, and devices.
In: Hargreaves KM, Cohen S, editors. Cohen’s Pathways of the Pulp.
New York: Elsevier; 2011. p. 223-80.
17. Jahromi MZ, Fathi MH, Zamiran S. Experimental study of smear layer
and debris remaining following the use of four root canal preparation
systems using scanning. J Islam Dent Assoc Iran 2013;25:179-85.
18. Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability
and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved
root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and
ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012;45:449-61.
19. Singh H, Kapoor P. Hyflex CM and EDM files: Revolutionizing the art
and science of endodontics. J Dent Heal Oral Disord Ther 2016;5:5-8.
20. Arvaniti IS, Khabbaz MG. Influence of root canal taper on its cleanliness:
A scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2011;37:871-4.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.