These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
293 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 14600698)
21. A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of AET instruments and K-flexofiles. Drukteinis S; Balciuniene I Stomatologija; 2006; 8(3):70-5. PubMed ID: 17191061 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Comparison of the efficacy of Smear Clear with and without a canal brush in smear layer and debris removal from instrumented root canal using WaveOne versus ProTaper: a scanning electron microscopic study. Kamel WH; Kataia EM J Endod; 2014 Mar; 40(3):446-50. PubMed ID: 24565669 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Effectiveness of various irrigation activation protocols and the self-adjusting file system on smear layer and debris removal. Çapar İD; Aydinbelge HA Scanning; 2014; 36(6):640-7. PubMed ID: 25285423 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. A comparative scanning electron microscopic investigation of the smear layer after the use of sodium hypochlorite gel and solution forms as root canal irrigants. Zand V; Lotfi M; Rahimi S; Mokhtari H; Kazemi A; Sakhamanesh V J Endod; 2010 Jul; 36(7):1234-7. PubMed ID: 20630306 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. 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. Kiran S; Prakash S; Siddharth PR; Saha S; Geojan NE; Ramachandran M J Contemp Dent Pract; 2016 Jul; 17(7):574-81. PubMed ID: 27595725 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Evaluation of smear layer removal after use of a canal brush: an SEM study. Garip Y; Sazak H; Gunday M; Hatipoglu S Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2010 Aug; 110(2):e62-6. PubMed ID: 20573530 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Canal cleanliness using different irrigation activation systems: a SEM evaluation. Urban K; Donnermeyer D; Schäfer E; Bürklein S Clin Oral Investig; 2017 Dec; 21(9):2681-2687. PubMed ID: 28185091 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Evaluation of Root Canal Dentin Erosion after Different Irrigation Methods Using Energy-dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy. Wang Z; Maezono H; Shen Y; Haapasalo M J Endod; 2016 Dec; 42(12):1834-1839. PubMed ID: 27769680 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Assessment of smear layer removal protocols in curved root canals. Yeung W; Raldi DP; Cunha RS; Mello I Aust Endod J; 2014 Aug; 40(2):66-71. PubMed ID: 25244220 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. SEM evaluation of root canal debridement with Sonicare CanalBrush irrigation. Salman MI; Baumann MA; Hellmich M; Roggendorf MJ; Termaat S Int Endod J; 2010 May; 43(5):363-9. PubMed ID: 20518928 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of debris and smear layer remaining following use of ProTaper and Hero Shaper instruments in combination with NaOCl and EDTA irrigation. Yang G; Wu H; Zheng Y; Zhang H; Li H; Zhou X Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2008 Oct; 106(4):e63-71. PubMed ID: 18701325 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. An ex vivo evaluation of a new root canal irrigation technique with intracanal aspiration. Fukumoto Y; Kikuchi I; Yoshioka T; Kobayashi C; Suda H Int Endod J; 2006 Feb; 39(2):93-9. PubMed ID: 16454788 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Smear layer removal efficacy of different irrigating solutions: a comparative scanning electron microscope evaluation. Ahir B; Parekh V; Katyayan MK; Katyayan PA Indian J Dent Res; 2014; 25(5):617-22. PubMed ID: 25511062 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Cleanliness and erosion of root canal walls after irrigation with a new HEDP-based solution vs. traditional sodium hypochlorite followed by EDTA. A scanning electron microscope study. Kfir A; Goldenberg C; Metzger Z; Hülsmann M; Baxter S Clin Oral Investig; 2020 Oct; 24(10):3699-3706. PubMed ID: 32418013 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Comparative study of root-canal preparation using Lightspeed and Quantec SC rotary NiTi instruments. Hülsmann M; Herbst U; Schäfers F Int Endod J; 2003 Nov; 36(11):748-56. PubMed ID: 14641438 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. A comparative study of the debridement efficacy and apical extrusion of dynamic and passive root canal irrigation systems. Alkahtani A; Al Khudhairi TD; Anil S BMC Oral Health; 2014 Feb; 14():12. PubMed ID: 24512441 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Comparison of a continuous ultrasonic irrigation device and conventional needle irrigation in the removal of root canal debris. Curtis TO; Sedgley CM J Endod; 2012 Sep; 38(9):1261-4. PubMed ID: 22892747 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The effect of different irrigation protocols on smear layer removal in root canals of primary teeth: a SEM study. Demirel A; Yüksel BN; Ziya M; Gümüş H; Doğan S; Sari Ş Acta Odontol Scand; 2019 Jul; 77(5):380-385. PubMed ID: 30859897 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Smear layer production by 3 rotary reamers with different cutting blade designs in straight root canals: a scanning electron microscopic study. Jeon IS; Spångberg LS; Yoon TC; Kazemi RB; Kum KY Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2003 Nov; 96(5):601-7. PubMed ID: 14600696 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Smear layer removal capacity of disinfectant solutions used with and without EDTA for the irrigation of canals: a SEM study. Menezes AC; Zanet CG; Valera MC Pesqui Odontol Bras; 2003; 17(4):349-55. PubMed ID: 15107918 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Previous] [Next] [New Search]