Abstract:Introduction: The effect of smear layer and debris on the success rate of endodontic treatment has not yet been definitely determined. So the present study was aimed to evaluate the amount of smear layer and debris on the canal walls prepared with a combination of hand and rotary ProTaper technique using NaOCl and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) alternately as root canal irrigants using scanning electron microscope (SEM). Materials and methods: Eighty intact freshly extracted human permanent mandibular premolar teeth were collected and randomly divided equally into four groups. In group I canals were prepared with hand K-Flexofiles; group II with rotary ProTaper instruments; group III with rotary ProTaper instruments and final instrumentation was done with hand K-Flexofile; group IV with rotary ProTaper instruments and final instrumentation was done with RC-Prep and irrigated with 1 mL of normal saline. In all groups canals were irrigated using NaOCl and EDTA alternately. After instrumentation, the teeth were prepared for SEM examination using five-score indices for debris and smear layer at coronal, middle, and apical third levels. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test (p < 0.05) and Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.05). Results: Statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in cleaning the apical third. Groups I and III showed better canal cleanliness compared to group II. The use of EDTA and NaOCl in group III was more effective in removing debris and smear layer compared to EDTA and normal saline in group IV. Regardless of the instrumentation technique employed and the irrigant used, the cleaning ability decreased in the apical third, resulting in higher debris and smear layer scores compared to coronal and middle third levels. Conclusion: None of the instrumentation techniques in the present study could completely eliminate the smear layer and debris from the canal walls. Instrumentation of the canals with hand files after automated rotary preparation could result in cleaner canal walls. Clinical significance: Alternate irrigation with NaOCl and EDTA is effective in the removal of debris and smear layer in the coronal and middle level, but the effectiveness in the apical third is less.

The efficacy of ProTaper rotary NiTi and stainless hand instruments to remove gutta-percha from root canals: an ex vivo study

Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Ni-Ti Rotary Instruments in Removal of Gutta-Percha During Root Canal Retreatment: An in vitro Study

Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of ProTaper & Mtwo Rotary Retreatment System and Conventional Hand H-files for Removal of Gutta-percha from Root Canal - A Stereomicroscopic Study

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of three single file retreatment systems for removal of gutta percha and assessment of root canal transportation - An In Vitro study

An assessment of the efficacy of a rotary and a reciprocating retreatment file system for removal of gutta-percha from root canals: An in vitro cone-beam computed tomography study

Microcomputed tomographic analysis of the efficiency of two retreatment techniques in removing root canal filling materials from mandibular incisors

Efficacy of Root Filling Removal from Aged, Minimally Instrumented Mandibular Molars Using a Retreatment System Combination

ASSESSMENT OF THREE HEAT TREATED SINGLE FILE SYSTEMS IN GUTTA-PERCHA REMOVAL USING CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY (AN IN VITRO STUDY)

In vitro apical extrusion of debris and instrumentation time following root canal instrumentation with Reciproc and Reciproc Blue instruments and a novel stainless steel rotary system (Gentlefile) versus manual instrumentation

In Vitro Cone Beam CT Analysis of the Efficacy of Three Supplementary Steps In the Removal of Obturation Material in Endodontic Retreatment

Comparative evaluation of apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation using three different rotary file systems

Evaluating In Vitro Performance of a Novel Stainless Steel Rotary System (Gentlefile) Based on Debris Extrusion and Instrumentation Time

Gentlefile Versus Protaper in the Shaping Ability in Simulated J-shaped Root Canals

Characterization of the differential efficacy of austenitic vs martensitic NiTi rotary files in non-surgical root canal retreatment: a micro-CT analysis

In vitro evaluation of filling material removal and apical debris extrusion after retreatment using Reciproc blue, Hyflex EDM and ProTaper retreatment files

Root canal preparation efficiency of protaper vs. combined technique in simulated resin root canal

Evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal filling material removal in teeth with external apical root resorption: a comparison of different obturation techniques

Postoperative pain after the removal of root canal filling material using different techniques in teeth with failed root canal therapy: a randomized clinical trial

Comparative Evaluation of Debris Expulsion Beyond Apex During Re-root Canal Treatment by Utilizing Two Re-treatment Rotary Files and Two Reciprocating Files: An In-Vitro Study

Comparison of the efficacy of three different supplementary cleaning protocols in root-filled teeth with a bioceramic sealer after retreatment—a micro-computed tomographic study

Comparative Evaluation of Smear Layer and Debris on the Canal Walls prepared with a Combination of Hand and Rotary ProTaper Technique using Scanning Electron Microscope