655 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17191061)
1. 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]
2. Effectiveness in cleaning oval-shaped root canals using Anatomic Endodontic Technology, ProFile and manual instrumentation: a scanning electron microscopic study.
Zmener O; Pameijer CH; Banegas G
Int Endod J; 2005 Jun; 38(6):356-63. PubMed ID: 15910470
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Cleaning efficiency of anatomic endodontic technology, ProFile System and Manual Instrumentation in oval-shaped root canals: an in vitro study.
Reddy ES; Sainath D; Narenderreddy M; Pasari S; Vallikanthan S; Sindhurareddy G
J Contemp Dent Pract; 2013 Jul; 14(4):629-34. PubMed ID: 24309340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effectiveness of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and MTAD on debris and smear layer removal using a self-adjusting file.
Adigüzel O; Yiğit-Özer S; Kaya S; Uysal İ; Ganidağli-Ayaz S; Akkuş Z
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2011 Dec; 112(6):803-8. PubMed ID: 21873086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effectiveness of different final irrigant activation protocols on smear layer removal in curved canals.
Caron G; Nham K; Bronnec F; Machtou P
J Endod; 2010 Aug; 36(8):1361-6. PubMed ID: 20647097
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments.
Foschi F; Nucci C; Montebugnoli L; Marchionni S; Breschi L; Malagnino VA; Prati C
Int Endod J; 2004 Dec; 37(12):832-9. PubMed ID: 15548274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. The effect of high-frequency electrical pulses on organic tissue in root canals.
Lendini M; Alemanno E; Migliaretti G; Berutti E
Int Endod J; 2005 Aug; 38(8):531-8. PubMed ID: 16011771
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. Influence of root canal taper on its cleanliness: a scanning electron microscopic study.
Arvaniti IS; Khabbaz MG
J Endod; 2011 Jun; 37(6):871-4. PubMed ID: 21787508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Root canal debris removal using different irrigating needles: an SEM study.
Ghivari S; Kubasad G
Indian J Dent Res; 2011; 22(5):659-63. PubMed ID: 22406709
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effectiveness of three different retreatment techniques in canals filled with compacted gutta-percha or Thermafil: a scanning electron microscope study.
Pirani C; Pelliccioni GA; Marchionni S; Montebugnoli L; Piana G; Prati C
J Endod; 2009 Oct; 35(10):1433-40. PubMed ID: 19801246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Root canal debridement efficacy of different final irrigation protocols.
Al-Ali M; Sathorn C; Parashos P
Int Endod J; 2012 Oct; 45(10):898-906. PubMed ID: 22486845
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of GT rotary instruments.
Gambarini G; Laszkiewicz J
Int Endod J; 2002 May; 35(5):422-7. PubMed ID: 12059912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The effectiveness of different acid irrigating solutions in root canal cleaning after hand and rotary instrumentation.
Pérez-Heredia M; Ferrer-Luque CM; González-Rodríguez MP
J Endod; 2006 Oct; 32(10):993-7. PubMed ID: 16982281
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. The effect of application time of EDTA and NaOCl on intracanal smear layer removal: an SEM analysis.
Teixeira CS; Felippe MC; Felippe WT
Int Endod J; 2005 May; 38(5):285-90. PubMed ID: 15876291
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
