Obeid, M., elshaboury, E., obeid, R. (2022). A comparative SEM assessment for the ability of PIPS, XP-Finisher and PUI to eliminate smear layer and open dentinal tubules. Egyptian Dental Journal, 68(2), 1937-1943. doi: 10.21608/edj.2022.117395.1956
maram Obeid; elham elshaboury; raneem obeid. "A comparative SEM assessment for the ability of PIPS, XP-Finisher and PUI to eliminate smear layer and open dentinal tubules". Egyptian Dental Journal, 68, 2, 2022, 1937-1943. doi: 10.21608/edj.2022.117395.1956
Obeid, M., elshaboury, E., obeid, R. (2022). 'A comparative SEM assessment for the ability of PIPS, XP-Finisher and PUI to eliminate smear layer and open dentinal tubules', Egyptian Dental Journal, 68(2), pp. 1937-1943. doi: 10.21608/edj.2022.117395.1956
Obeid, M., elshaboury, E., obeid, R. A comparative SEM assessment for the ability of PIPS, XP-Finisher and PUI to eliminate smear layer and open dentinal tubules. Egyptian Dental Journal, 2022; 68(2): 1937-1943. doi: 10.21608/edj.2022.117395.1956
A comparative SEM assessment for the ability of PIPS, XP-Finisher and PUI to eliminate smear layer and open dentinal tubules
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.
Top