Journal of Dental Sciences (2011) 6, 41e47

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.e-jds.com

Original Article

Effects of liquid- and paste-type EDTA on

smear-layer removal during rotary root-canal
instrumentation
Gin Chen 1,2,3, Yu-Chao Chang 1*

1
School of Dentistry, College of Oral Medicine, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan
2
Division of Endodontics and Periodontics, Department of Dentistry, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan
3
College of Dentistry, National Yang-Ming Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan

Received 8 November 2010; accepted 11 February 2011

Available online 21 March 2011

KEYWORDS Abstract Background/purpose: EDTA is routinely recommended as a chemical irrigant during

chemo-mechanical root-canal treatment, but few studies have compared the effectiveness in smear-layer
instrumentation; removal during rotary root-canal instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate,
EDTA; in vitro, the effect of liquid- and paste-type EDTA in root-canal debris removal during rotary
rotary root-canal root-canal instrumentation using an incremental crown-down technique.
instrumentation; Materials and methods: One hundred human single-root teeth were used in this study. Speci-
smear layer mens were accessed and instrumented with K3 rotary nickeletitanium files using an incre-
mental crown-down technique. The teeth were then randomly divided into 5 groups and
alternately irrigated with 5 mL of 2.6% NaOCl and treated with one of the following chelators:
Endo-cleanse, RC-Prep, Glyde-File, or File-Eze. The teeth were then dried, split into 2 halves
and examined under scanning electron microscopy. The micrographs were analyzed using
a 4-point evaluation index at the coronal, middle, and apical third of the root-canal wall.
Results: We found that root-canal cleanliness gradually increased from the apical to the
coronal part. Rates of complete cleansing were up to 48.3%. No complete root-canal cleanli-
ness was obtained even when liquid EDTA (Endo-Cleanse) was used as the positive control.
In the coronal and middle parts of the root canals, the cleaning abilities of File-Eze and
Glyde-File were statistically significant better than that of RC-Prep. No differences were found
in the cleansing effects in the apical part of the root canal. However, statistically significant
differences were found between File-Eze and Endo-Cleanse in the coronal and apical parts
of the root canals.

* Corresponding author. Department of Dentistry, Chun Shan Medical University Hospital, 110 Jianguo North Road, Section 1, Taichung 402,
Taiwan. Tel.: þ886 4 24718668x55161; fax: þ886 4 24759065.
E-mail address: cyc@csmu.edu.tw (G. Chen).

1991-7902/$36 Copyright ª 2011, Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jds.2011.02.007
42 G. Chen, Y.-C. Chang

Conclusions: The use of paste/gel-type chelators during rotary nickeletitanium instrumenta-

tion resulted in improved cleanliness in the coronal and middle parts of the root canal. We
recommend using liquid EDTA as a final flushing solution during root-canal preparation because
it provides a better smear layer-free condition before 3-dimensional root-canal obturation.
Copyright ª 2011, Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Published
by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.

Introduction canal disinfection by facilitating removal of the smear layer.

Successful endodontic procedures depend on complete
root-canal cleansing and shaping, 3-dimensional hermetic
root-canal system obturation, and good fittings with no
leakage of coronal restorations. Some previous studies
demonstrated that mechanical instrumentation of a root
canal might create a bacterium-free environment and
maintain disinfection results.1,2 Therefore, various types of
hand- and engine-driven rotary instruments and irrigation
solutions were developed for root-canal preparation.
However, current cleansing techniques are not able to clean
the entire root-canal system, especially the contaminated
root canals. Numerous investigations using scanning elec-
tronic microscopy (SEM) proved that in addition to the
superficial debris left on the canal wall, root-canal instru-
mentation leaves organic and inorganic substances that
accumulate in the smear layer on the root-canal wall.1e4
The smear layer was shown to contain remnants of
necrotic pulp tissues, dentinal cutting debris, and microor-
ganisms.5 The presence of a smear layer inside the root-
canal system is controversial, but many studies indicated
that removal of the smear layer is desirable because it
prevents penetration of the irrigation solutions and intra-
canal medications into the dentinal tubules and irregulari-
ties of the root-canal system and also hinders the complete
adaptation of obturation materials to the prepared root-
canal wall.6 The smear layer, therefore, impedes root-canal
disinfection and allows microleakage that can cause root-
canal treatment failure. Furthermore, the discussion
regarding whether the smear layer should be removed,
there is still a debate about the volume of irrigant and
contact interval.
In order to obtain a clean environment and enhance
hermetic sealing during root-canal obturation, some inves-
tigators recommended the use of various irrigants and
techniques such as sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), organic
citric acid, chelating agents like ethylenediaminetetra-
acetic acid (EDTA), ultrasonics, and lasers for adjunct
chemical and mechanical debridement during root-canal
treatment to remove the smear layer.7e10 Recently, the
cleansing action of EDTA in association with a sodium hypo-
chlorite solution was extensively used during chemo-
mechanical preparation of root canals especially with rotary
nickeletitanium instrumentation.6,10e12 EDTA was first
introduced in root-canal treatment procedures by Nygaard-
Ostby in 1957.13 Sodium hypochlorite has been in use for
more than 70 years.10,12,14 Chelating agents such as EDTA act
on calcified tissues by substituting sodium ions, which
combine with dentine to produce soluble salts, for the
calcium ions that are then bound in less-soluble combina-
tions.15 This may help prevent canal blockage and aid root-
Therefore, removal of the smear layer in clinical endodon-
tics allows better disinfection of the contaminated root-
canal dentine and increases adhesion of root-canal filling
materials to the root-canal wall.6,16,17
The current literature predominantly reports on the
actions of EDTA and recommends it for routine use as
a lubricant during rotary root-canal preparation to reduce
stress on the instruments and improve hard-tissue debride-
ment.18 However, few studies have compared the effec-
tiveness of chelating agent with paste or gel consistency in
smear-layer removal during rotary root-canal instrumenta-
tion. During the past few years, nickeletitanium rotary
instruments were developed and have become popular in
root-canal preparation as they improve the cleansing effi-
ciency. Moreover, rotary nickeletitanium instrumentation
with an incremental crown-down technique completely
differs from traditional root-canal instruments in both the
determined distance of the shaping procedures and instru-
ment designs.19,20 Most clinicians believe that smear-layer
formation during rotary root-canal preparation differs from
that previously reported because the rake angle of the
cutting blade, helix angles, and pitch may allow the cutting
debris to accumulate and make it difficult to remove.21,22 A
study by Pashley in 1984 emphasized that the depth and
packing density of the smear layer varies widely depending
on whether the dentin is cut dry or wet, the amount and
composition of the irrigating solution used, and the type and
speed of the instrument used.5,23,24 The purpose of this
study was to evaluate, in vitro, the effect of liquid- and
paste-type EDTA in root-canal debris and smear-layer
removal during rotary root-canal instrumentation using an
incremental crown-down technique.
Materials and methods
One hundred human single-root teeth, with completely
formed apices, were collected from teeth freshly extracted
from patients at the Department of Dentistry, Taichung
Veterans General Hospital because of orthodontic or severe
periodontal disease. Written informed consent was
obtained from each patient before tooth extraction. All
specimens were immersed in a physiological saline solution
before root-canal treatment.
Before root-canal preparation, the crowns of the teeth
were sectioned at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and
then discarded. The working length was determined using
a 10-k-type file to reach 1.0 mm short of the apical foramen.
All root canals were instrumented with a K3 rotary nickele
titanium file for a determined distance, using the incre-
mental crown-down technique, a reduction handpiece
(16:1; W&H Dentalwerk Burmoos, Burmoos, Austria), and an
Smear-layer removal during rotary instrumentation 43

electric motor (TCM 3000; Nouvag, Goldach, Switzerland). Total:100 teeth

Canal preparation combined with irrigation was sequentially Experimental:80/control:20
performed with K3 rotary files of 0.12/25 (12% taper and
0.25 mm apical size, with the root canal prepared to
a distance of 10 mm from the apex), 0.10/25 (with the root GP 1:20 teeth GP 2:20 teeth GP 3:20 teeth GP 4:20 teeth
Endo-Cleanse Rc-Prep Glyde File File-Eze
canal prepared to a distance of 8 mm from the apex), 0.08/
25 (with the root canal prepared to a distance of 6 mm from
the apex), 0.06/25 (with the root canal prepared to Figure 1 Specimens and paste/gel-type chelators used
a distance of 4 mm from the apex), 0.04/25 (with the root during and after rotary root-canal instrumentation with the
canal prepared to a distance of 2 mm from the apex), and incremental crown-down technique.
0.02/25 (with the root canal prepared to the apex), and then
recapitulated up to 0.04/25 and 0.06/25. During root-canal
instrumentation, a disposable 5-mL syringe with a 27-guage
After the chemo-mechanical preparation was complete,
blunt hypodermic needle that was placed 3 mm from the
all teeth were irrigated with distilled water. The canals
apical foramen was used to introduce a 2.6% NaOCl solution.
were then aspirated and left to dry in their respective
Furthermore, 1.0 mL of EDTA chelating paste (including RC-
covered containers to prevent dust contamination. The
prep, Glyde-File, and File-Eze) was used in accordance with
teeth were cut along the buccolingual direction using a no.
the manufacturer’s instructions and introduced into the
2 diamond round bur and then split with a chisel. The most
apical 3 mm of the root canal using a disposable 5-mL syringe
regular and integrated hemi-section of each tooth was
during every step of root-canal instrumentation (Table 1).
chosen for SEM analysis. The micrographs (500 and 1000)
The amount used was always sufficient to fill the canal
of the complete areas were numbered and analyzed by
entrance.
3 endodontists using a 4-point evaluation index at the
During root-canal instrumentation, the teeth were
coronal, middle, and apical third of the root canal
randomly divided into 4 groups and treated with different
according to the method described by Hulsmann in 2002.25
EDTA chelating agents as follows (Fig. 1).
The four points are defined as follows (Fig. 2): I, indicated
In Group 1, 40 specimens were irrigated with 5 mL of
that dentinal tubules were completely open and no smear
2.6% NaOCl during canal preparation, and 5 mL of the
layer was found; II, indicated that >50% of the dentinal
solution was used to irrigate the canal at every step of the
tubules were open; III, indicated that <50% of the dentinal
root-canal instrumentation. In this group (which served as
tubules were open; and IV, indicated that >75% of the
a positive control), 20 canals were rinsed with 1.0 mL of
dentinal tubules were covered by the smear layer.
Endo-Cleanse which was introduced into the apical 3 mm of
Data were statistically analyzed using the Manne
the root canal using a disposable 5-mL syringe with a 27-
Whitney test and KruskaleWallis test. The level of signifi-
gauge needle (Roydent, Rochester Hills, MI, USA) during the
cance for all statistical tests was accepted at P < 0.05.
cleaning and shaping procedures. The other 20 canals
(negative control) were rinsed with 2.6% of NaOCl only. In
group 2, 20 specimens were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.6% Results
NaOCl during canal preparation, and 1.0 mL of RC-Prep
(Premier-Dental, Plymouth, PA, USA) paste was used with The results of the SEM observations of the removal of the
the same procedures as described for Group 1, and the smear layer (root-canal cleanliness) are shown in Table 2. In
canal was filled until the end of instrumentation. In group general, the root-canal wall of Group 1 (the positive
3, 20 specimens were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.6% NaOCl control) showed remarkable cleanliness, and up to 66.7%
during canal preparation, and 1.0 mL of Glyde-File (Dents- (40 of 60) of the examined pictures were free of a smear
ply/Maillefer, Tulsa, OK, USA) paste was used with the same layer (score I) in the 3 different areas. For Groups 2, 3, and
procedures as described for Group 1, and the canal was 4, in which paste/gel-type EDTA was used, we found root-
filled until the end of instrumentation. In group 4, 20 canal cleanliness gradually increased from the apical to the
specimens were irrigated with 5 mL of 2.6% NaOCl during coronal part. However, higher rates of smear layer-free
canal preparation, and 1.0 mL of File-Eze (Ultradent, Salt areas (48.3% with score I and 22.0% with score II) were
Lake City, UT, USA) gel was used with the same procedures observed in the coronal part. Scores III and IV were found in
as described for Group 1, and the canal was filled until the the apical area. Overall, the results showed that no
end of instrumentation. complete cleanliness of root canal was obtained even when

Table 1 Composition and form of the 3 chelators.

Endo-Cleanse RC-Prep Glyde-File File-Eze
Composition 17% EDTA in a 15% EDTA and 15% EDTA, 19% EDTA in a water-soluble mixture
neutral pH 10% Urea peroxide 10% Urea peroxide,
Polyethylene glycol and
Cetylalcohol 20% Propylene
Propylene glycol glycol
Form Liquid Paste Paste Gel
Manufacturer Roydent Premier Dentsply/Maillefer Ultradent
44 G. Chen, Y.-C. Chang

Figure 2 The 4-score evaluation index described by Hulsmann in 2002.25

liquid EDTA (Endo-Cleanse) was used in the positive-control
specimens in Group 1. In the coronal and middle parts of
the root canals, the cleansing ability rates (scores I and II, >
50% areas of cleanliness) of File-Eze and Glyde-File were as
high as 76.7% and 69.4%, respectively, and both were
statistically significant (P < 0.05) and higher than RC-Prep
in the same areas. No differences were found in the
cleansing effects in the apical part of the root canal among
these paste/gel-type chelators (Fig. 3). The statistical
analyses showed that there were a significant difference in
cleansing between the coronal and apical parts of the root
canals treated with File-Eze (EDTA gel) and Endo-Cleanse
(liquid EDTA) (P < 0.05) (Fig. 4).
Discussion
Successful endodontic procedures depend on complete
root-canal cleansing and removal of inflamed and necrotic
tissue from the root-canal system. Thorough cleansing
reduces or eliminates microorganisms and endotoxins which
prevent tissue breakdown that could interfere with the
normal defense and repair mechanisms on which the
restoration of the tooth to health and function depends.1,7
Many investigations reported that mechanical instrumen-
tation of a root-canal leaves organic and inorganic
substances that accumulate in the smear layer on the
dentinal wall.1e3 In order to obtain a clean environment
and enhance hermetic sealing during root-canal obturation,
some authors proposed copious irrigation of the canal with
a wide variety of irrigants, including chelating agents.6,7
Because the introduction of EDTA into endodontics by
Nygaard-Ostby in 1957, chelators have been used to soften
the dentin and facilitate enlargement of calcified and
narrow root canals.13 Although the benefits of chelators
were widely discussed, liquid EDTA at different concen-
trations and with the addition of various detergents and
surfactants was proposed to serve as a lubricating agent for
root-canal preparation, particularly during rotary nickele
titanium instrumentation, which is currently the most
popular shaping technique in clinical endodontics.18,10,12
Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the

Table 2 Results of root-canal cleanliness after using different EDTA agents.

Score Group 1: Endo-cleanse Group 2: RC-Prep Group 3: Glyde-File Group 4: File-Eze
Coronal Middle Apical Coronal Middle Apical Coronal Middle Apical Coronal Middle Apical
I 16 14 10 7 4 4 11 10 7 16 10 7
II 2 4 4 5 7 5 4 3 6 3 6 4
III 2 2 4 5 6 7 3 5 5 1 3 6
IV 0 0 2 3 3 4 2 2 2 0 1 3
Statistical significance set at P < 0.05.
Smear-layer removal during rotary instrumentation 45

Figure 3 Box-plot diagrams of the cleanliness of different chelators in the same area of root-canal walls. Significant differences
(P < 0.05) are indicated by horizontal bars.

Figure 4 Box-plot diagrams of the cleanliness of chelators in 3 different areas of root-canal walls. Significant differences
(P < 0.05) are indicated by horizontal bars.
46
cleansing ability (root-canal cleanliness) of 3 paste/gel-
type chelators used during rotary nickeletitanium root-
canal preparation.
Although, there is no consensus on the best method for
removing the smear layer and cleansing the root-canal wall,
the results of the present study, similar to those of several
previous investigations,1,9,10,26e32 showed that the thick-
ness and penetration of the smear layer in the dentinal
tubules varied in the 3 selected areas: coronal, middle, and
apical portions. Although the design of the rotary nickele
titanium instrument, a pre-flaring 0.06 tapered canal
shape, may have affected the extent of smear-layer
formation, the incremental crown-down preparation in this
study was designed to help decrease the contact area,
alleviate frictional forces, prevent the accumulation of
cutting debris, and enhance removal of the smear layer. In
general, complete canal cleanliness has not been found
under SEM observations, although rotary root-canal instru-
mentation was demonstrated to enhance the cleansing
effectiveness during root-canal treatment (Table 2).18,20e22
Basically, superficial debris and a smear layer were only
found in a limited number of SEM pictures, and more than
70.3% (169 of 240) of the dentinal tubules were open in the
majority after they were treated with the 3 paste/gel-type
chelators. The images of the 3 sections of the root-canal
wall showed that the effects of the chelators on smear-
layer removal were more obvious in the coronal and middle
parts, particularly in those groups treated with the File-Eze
and Glyde-File pastes (Figs. 3 and 4). Exposed dentinal
tubules (scores I and II, i.e., more than 50% clean) were as
high as 76.7% (14 of 60) and 69.4% (19 of 60), respectively.
Statistical evaluations also proved that they obviously
differed. This was probably because chelating paste does
not easily flow into the narrow apical part or make contact
with canal walls because of its stickiness and consistency.
The chelating agent causes a reaction, the chemo-
mechanical effect of which is limited because only a small
amount of the chelators can react inside the narrow root-
canal walls.23,24 Furthermore, the greater the tapering of
the rotary nickeletitanium instrument (for example, a 12%
tapered instrument is 6 times larger than a 2% tapered
instrument), the greater the decrease in the contact space
and acting volume, which can minimize the cleansing effect
during root-canal preparation. The positive cutting blade
and speed of the rotary nickeletitanium instrument
increase the cutting efficiency during root-canal shaping,
but they may also reinforce the thickness and density of the
smear layer and hamper the removal of cutting debris even
when an EDTA paste/gel is continuously applied throughout
the entire shaping procedure.18 A recent study by Ahn and
Yu found that the use of Glyde-File during rotary instru-
mentation had no influence on smear-layer removal, but
a significantly superior performance with liquid EDTA was
observed.33 In parallel with their results, our findings also
confirmed that the 3 different paste/gel chelators did not
clean the smear layer as well as liquid EDTA did (Endo-
Cleanse) (Fig. 4). We demonstrated that using the paste/gel
chelators, we could remove nearly 70.3% (scores I and score II
of cleanliness) of the smear layer and debris in the root
canal, particularly in the coronal and middle parts.
However, a small portion of about 13.7% (33 of 240) of the
smear layer still remained on the apical part of the root
G. Chen, Y.-C. Chang
canal. The degree of root-canal cleanliness gradually
decreased from the coronal to the apical part of the root
canal. In conclusion, the use of paste/gel-type chelators
during rotary nickeletitanium instrumentation in the
present study resulted in improved cleanliness in the
coronal and middle parts of the root canal. We recommend
using liquid EDTA (such as REDTA or Endo-Cleanse) as
a final flushing solution during root-canal preparation
because it provides better smear layer-free conditions
before 3-dimensional obturation.
References
1. McComb D, Smith DC. A preliminary scanning electron micro-
scopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures.
Journal of Endodontics 1975;7:238e42.
2. Sen BH, Wesselink PR, Turkun M. The smear layer: a phenom-
enon in root canal therapy. International Endodontic Journal
1995;28:141e8.
3. Boyde A, Knight PJ. Scanning electronic microscopc studies of
the penetration of the embrasure walls of class II cavities.
British Dental Journal 1970;129:557e64.
4. Mader CL, Baumgartner JC, Peters DD. Scanning electron
microscopic investigation of the smear layer on root canal
walls. Journal of Endodontics 1984;10:477e83.
5. Pashley DH. Smear layer: physiological consideration. Opera-
tive Dentistry 1984;Suppl. 3:13e29.
6. Shahravan A, Haghdoost AA, Adl A, Rahimi H, Shadifar F. Effect
of smear layer on sealing ability of canal obturation: a system-
atic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Endodontics 2007;33:
96e105.
7. Harrison JW. Irrigation of the root canal system. Dental Clinics
of North American 1984;28:797e808.
8. Scelza MFZ, Antoniazzi JH, Scelza P. Efficacy of final irrigation e
a scanning electron microscopic evaluation. Journal of
Endodontics 2000;26:355e8.
9. Shoji S, Hariu H, Horiuchi H. Canal enlargement by Er:YAG laser
using a cone-shaped irradiation tip. Journal of Endodontics
2000;26:454e8.
10. Garberoglio R, Becce C. Smear layer removal by root canal
irrigants. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology 1994;78:
358e66.
11. Grandini S, Balleri P, Ferrari M. Evaluation of Glyde-File prep in
combination with sodium hypochlorite as a root canal irrigant.
Journal of Endodontics 2002;28:30e3.
12. Grawehr M, Sener B, Waltimo T, Zehnder M. Interactions of
ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid with sodium hypochlorite in
aqueous solutions. International Endodontic Journal 2003;36:
411e7.
13. Nygaard-Ostby BN. Chelation in root canal therapy: ethyl-
enediamine tetra-acetic acid for cleansing and widening of
root canals. Odontologisk Tidskrift 1957;65:3e11.
14. Walker A. Definite and dependable therapy for pulpless teeth.
Journal of the American Dental Association 1936;23:1418e23.
15. Seidberg BH, Schilder H. An evaluation of EDTA in endodontics.
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology 1974;37:609e20.
16. Orstavik D, Haapasalo M. Disinfection by endodontic irrigants
and dressings of experimentally infected dentinal tubules.
Endodontic and Dental Traumatology 1990;6:142e9.
17. Taylor JK, Jeansonne BG, Lemon RR. Coronal leakage: effects
of smear layer, obturation technique, and sealer. Journal of
Endodontics 1997;23:508e12.
18. Peters OA, Boessler C, Zehnder M. Effect of liquid and paste-
type lubricants on torque values during simulated rotary root
canal instrumentation. International Endodontic Journal 2005;
38:223e9.
Smear-layer removal during rotary instrumentation
19. Yguel-Henry S, Vannesson H, Von Stebut J. High precision,
simulated cutting efficiency measurement of endodontic root
canal instruments: influence of file configuration and lubrica-
tion. Journal of Endodontics 1990;16:418e22.
20. Peters OA, Barbakov F. Effects of irrigation on debris and smear
layer on canal walls prepared by two rotary techniques:
a scanning electron microscopic study. Journal of Endodontics
2000;1:6e10.
21. Thompson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of Profile 0.04
Taper Series 29 rotary nickeletitanium instruments in simu-
lated root canals. Part I. International Endodontic Journal
1997;30:1e7.
22. Kum KY, Kazemi RB, Cha BY, Zhu Q. Smear layer production of
K3 and ProFile Ni-Ti rotary instruments in curved root canals:
a comparative SEM study. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral
Pathology and Oral Radiology Endodontics 2006;101:536e41.
23. Lee YS, Chen G. The mechanism and clinical application of
EDTA. Journal of Dental Science 2000;20:29e34.
24. Hulsmann M, Heckendorff M, Lennon A. Chelating agents in
root canal treatment: mode of action and indications for their
use. International Endodontic Journal 2003;36:810e30.
25. Hulsmann M, Heckendorff M, Schafers F. Comparative in vitro
evaluation of three chelator pastes. International Endodontic
Journal 2002;35:668e79.
47
26. Ram Z. Chelation in root canal therapy. Oral Surgery, Oral
Medicine, Oral Pathology 1980;49:64e74.
27. Goodman M, Goldman LB, Kronman JH, Lin PS. The efficacy of
several irrigating solutions for endodontics: a scanning elec-
tronic microscopic study. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral
Pathology 1981;52:197e204.
28. Berg MS, Jacobsen EL, BeGole EA, Remeikis NA. A comparison
of five irrigating solutions: a scanning electron microscopic
study. Journal of Endodontics 1986;12:192e7.
29. Abbott PV, Heijkoop PS, Cardaci SC, Hume WR. An SEM study of
the effects of different irrigation sequences and ultrasonics.
International Endodontic Journal 1991;24:308e16.
30. Stewart GG. A scanning electronic microscopic study of the
cleansing effectiveness of three irrigating modalities on the
tubular structure of dentin. Journal of Endodontics 1998;24:
485e6.
31. Calt S, Serper A. Smear layer removal by EDTA. Journal of
Endodontics 2000;26:459e61.
32. O’Connell MS, Morgan LA, Beeler WJ, Baumgartner JC. A
comparative study of smear layer removal using different salts
of EDTA. Journal of Endodontics 2000;26:739e43.
33. Ahn A, Yu T. Effects of irrigation solutions on smear layer using
Lightspeed instrumentation. Journal Dental Research 2000;79:
527 (IADR Abstract 3068).