Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1997 May;23(5):301-6.
doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80410-4.

Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative SEM investigation

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative SEM investigation

M Hülsmann et al. J Endod. 1997 May.

Abstract

The root canals of 150 extracted mandibular incisors were prepared to ISO 30 using eight different automated devices and hand instruments. The automated devices investigated were: Endoplaner, Excalibur, Ultrasonics (Piezon Master 400) with H2O2 (5%), or NaOCl (1%) as irrigants, Giromatic, Intra-Endo 3-LDSY, Canal Finder System, Canal Leader 2000, and Endolift. Hand instrumentation was performed using reamers and Hedstroem files. Fifteen teeth were instrumented with each device, cracked longitudinally, and investigated under the scanning electron microscope using five category scoring systems based on reference photographs for debris and smear layer. No preparation system or technique resulted in complete removal of smear layer and debris. The ultrasonic unit performed best followed by the Canal Leader 2000 and hand instrumentation, whereas the use of the Giromatic, the Endolift, the Canal Finder System, and the Intra-Endo-3-LDSY-handpiece resulted in insufficiently cleaned root canal walls.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources