1084 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24139274)
1. Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, EndoVac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): field emission scanning electron microscopic evaluation in an in vitro study.
Mancini M; Cerroni L; Iorio L; Armellin E; Conte G; Cianconi L
J Endod; 2013 Nov; 39(11):1456-60. PubMed ID: 24139274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. FESEM evaluation of smear layer removal using different irrigant activation methods (EndoActivator, EndoVac, PUI and LAI). An in vitro study.
Mancini M; Cerroni L; Iorio L; Dall'Asta L; Cianconi L
Clin Oral Investig; 2018 Mar; 22(2):993-999. PubMed ID: 28721527
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Effect of different final irrigation methods on the removal of calcium hydroxide from an artificial standardized groove in the apical third of root canals.
Capar ID; Ozcan E; Arslan H; Ertas H; Aydinbelge HA
J Endod; 2014 Mar; 40(3):451-4. PubMed ID: 24565670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Effect of passive ultrasonic irrigation and manual dynamic irrigation on smear layer removal from root canals in a closed apex in vitro model.
Andrabi SM; Kumar A; Zia A; Iftekhar H; Alam S; Siddiqui S
J Investig Clin Dent; 2014 Aug; 5(3):188-93. PubMed ID: 23595996
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Efficacy of 3 different irrigation systems on removal of calcium hydroxide from the root canal: a scanning electron microscopic study.
Alturaiki S; Lamphon H; Edrees H; Ahlquist M
J Endod; 2015 Jan; 41(1):97-101. PubMed ID: 25442071
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The effect of different final irrigant activation techniques on the bond strength of an epoxy resin-based endodontic sealer: a preliminary study.
Topçuoğlu HS; Tuncay Ö; Demirbuga S; Dinçer AN; Arslan H
J Endod; 2014 Jun; 40(6):862-6. PubMed ID: 24862718
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Comparative evaluation of canal isthmus debridement efficacy of modified EndoVac technique with different irrigation systems.
Thomas AR; Velmurugan N; Smita S; Jothilatha S
J Endod; 2014 Oct; 40(10):1676-80. PubMed ID: 25052146
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Efficacy of four different irrigation techniques combined with 60 °C 3% sodium hypochlorite and 17% EDTA in smear layer removal.
Guo X; Miao H; Li L; Zhang S; Zhou D; Lu Y; Wu L
BMC Oral Health; 2014 Sep; 14():114. PubMed ID: 25201549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. A quantitative and qualitative analysis of ultrasonic versus sonic endodontic systems on canal cleanliness and obturation.
Kanter V; Weldon E; Nair U; Varella C; Kanter K; Anusavice K; Pileggi R
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2011 Dec; 112(6):809-13. PubMed ID: 21906970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Smear layer removal with passive ultrasonic irrigation and the NaviTip FX: a scanning electron microscopic study.
Goel S; Tewari S
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2009 Sep; 108(3):465-70. PubMed ID: 19576804
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Effects of different sonic activation protocols on debridement efficacy in teeth with single-rooted canals.
Niu LN; Luo XJ; Li GH; Bortoluzzi EA; Mao J; Chen JH; Gutmann JL; Pashley DH; Tay FR
J Dent; 2014 Aug; 42(8):1001-9. PubMed ID: 24878251
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Evaluation of radicular dentin erosion and smear layer removal capacity of Self-Adjusting File using different concentrations of sodium hypochlorite as an initial irrigant.
Kaya S; Yiğit-Özer S; Adigüzel Ö
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod; 2011 Oct; 112(4):524-30. PubMed ID: 21664155
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of agitation of EDTA with 808-nanometer diode laser on removal of smear layer.
Arslan H; Ayrancı LB; Karatas E; Topçuoğlu HS; Yavuz MS; Kesim B
J Endod; 2013 Dec; 39(12):1589-92. PubMed ID: 24238453
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Efficacy of different final irrigation activation techniques on smear layer removal.
Saber Sel-D; Hashem AA
J Endod; 2011 Sep; 37(9):1272-5. PubMed ID: 21846546
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
