Comparison of the efficacy of three chelating agents in smear layer removal

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of SmearClear (Sybron Endo, Orange, CA), 17% EDTA, and 10% citric acid in smear layer removal. Forty-eight extracted single-rooted human teeth were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 12) and instrumented using Mtwo nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Each canal was subsequently irrigated with one of the following solutions: 5.25% NaOCl (control), SmearClear, 17% EDTA, or 10% citric acid. After that, all the specimens were subjected to irrigation with 5.25% NaOCl. The teeth were then processed for scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and the removal of the smear layer was examined in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds. The results showed that there were no significant differences in the efficacy of three chelating agents at all levels of the root canals. The comparison of three one thirds in each group showed no significant difference in the SmearClear and EDTA groups. However, the efficacy of citric acid was significantly less in the apical third compared with the coronal and middle thirds of the canals. In conclusion, the protocol used in this study was not efficient to completely remove the smear layer especially in the apical third of the canal.     

Comparison of the Efficacy of Maleic Acid and Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid in Smear Layer Removal from Instrumented Human Root Canal: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to assess, by scanning electron microscopic (SEM) analysis, the ability of 17% EDTA and 7% maleic acid in the removal of the smear layer from the human root canal system.MethodsEighty single-rooted human anterior teeth were subjected to standardized root canal instrumentation (step-back technique) and were irrigated with 2.5% NaOCl after each instrument. Based on the final irrigating solution used, samples were divided randomly into three groups: (1) the EDTA group: 17% EDTA+ 2.5% NaOCl (n = 30), (2) the maleic acid group: 7% maleic acid + 2.5% NaOCl (n = 30), and (3) the control group: 0.9% saline (n = 20). After final irrigation, teeth were prepared for SEM analysis to evaluate the cleaning of the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of radicular dentin by determining the presence or absence of smear layer. The data was statistically analyzed using the Kruskall-Wallis test.ResultsAt the coronal and middle thirds, there was no significant difference between EDTA and maleic acid. Both were equally efficient in the removal of smear layer. In the apical third, maleic acid showed significantly better smear layer removing ability than EDTA.ConclusionFinal irrigation with 7% maleic acid is more efficient than 17%EDTA in the removal of smear layer from the apical third of the root canal system, which is a crucial area for disinfection.     

A comparative study of smear layer removal using different salts of EDTA

Three solutions of EDTA--a 15% concentration of the alkaline salt, a 15% concentration of the acid salt, and a 25% concentration of the alkaline salt--were evaluated for smear layer removal in root canal systems. All solutions were adjusted to pH 7.1 using either NaOH or HCl. When the EDTA solutions were alternately used for root canal irrigation with 5.25% NaOCl, they completely removed the smear layer in the middle and coronal thirds of canal preparations, but were less effective in the apical third. None of the EDTA solutions by themselves were effective at completely removing the smear layer at any level. The alkaline tetrasodium salt, pH adjusted with HCl, is more cost effective and performed equally as well as the more commonly used disodium salt.     

5种冲洗剂组合对前牙直根管清洁效果的比较

目的：比较5种冲洗剂组合对前牙直根管的清洁效果。方法：25颗离体直根管前牙,随机分为5组,不锈钢K锉常规法预备根管．应用5种冲洗剂组合进行冲洗。第1组：根管器械预备期间和预备结束后依次用1％NaOCl和3％H2O2冲洗;第2组：根管器械预备期间用1％NaOCl冲洗,预备结束后用17％EDTA冲洗;第3组：根管器械预备期间和预备结束后依次用1％NaOCl和17％EDTA冲洗：第4组：根管器械预备期间依次用17％EDTA和1％NaOCl冲洗,器械预备结束后用17％EDTA冲洗;第5组：根管器械预备期间依次用17％EDTA、1％Triton X-100(表面活性剂)和1％NaOCl冲洗．器械预备结束后用17％EDTA冲洗。每组冲洗剂剂量和冲洗时间均为22ml和7min。将牙纵劈后进行扫描电镜观察。结果：第1组,根管壁上见典型玷污层结构和大量杂质和残屑。第2组在根管冠、中1／3能部分去除玷污层．根尖1／3残留大量玷污层。第3组虽然能有效去除玷污层．但会引起牙本质小管中度腐蚀。第5组在根管冠、中1／3能部分去除玷污层,但根管壁上黏着大量杂质和残屑．此外还存在重度腐蚀现象。第4组根管清洁效果最好,且对牙本质小管无腐蚀性。结论：在严格控制冲洗时间和顺序的情况下,联合应用17％EDTA和1％NaOCl能有效去除玷污层．且不会腐蚀牙本质小管。     

Effect of Different Irrigation on Smear Layer Removal after Post Space Preparation

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different irrigating solutions on smear layer removal and dentinal tubule opening on root canal surfaces after post space preparation and to study whether additional ultrasonic irrigation has any effect on smear layer removal. Forty-eight anterior teeth were treated endodontically. After post space preparation, they were assigned to six groups: group 1, EDTA; group 2, EDTA with ultrasonic activation; group 3, sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); group 4, NaOCl with ultrasonic activation; group 5, sodium chloride (NaCl); and group 6, NaCl with ultrasonic activation. Specimens were examined under a field-emission scanning electron microscope and scored for debris removal and dentinal tubule opening at the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root canal. The results showed that EDTA performed significantly better than NaCl and NaOCl in smear layer removal and dentinal tubule opening. Additional ultrasonic irrigation did not improve smear layer removal significantly.     

The effectiveness of different acid irrigating solutions in root canal cleaning after hand and rotary instrumentation

The goal of this study was to evaluate the cleaning ability of three acid irrigating solutions after hand and rotary instrumentation. Eighty human teeth were randomly divided in eight groups. Four groups were prepared with hand instrumentation and other four with ProTaper. The irrigating solutions were 15% citric acid plus 2.5% NaOCl; 15% EDTA plus 2.5% NaOCl; 5% orthophosphoric acid plus 2.5% NaOCl; and 2.5% NaOCl alone as control. Canal walls were observed with scanning electron microscopy, and photomicrographs were taken in apical, middle, and coronal thirds. A scoring system for debris and smear layer was used. Acid solutions with 2.5% NaOCl were effective in the elimination of smear layer or debris, and no significant differences were showed in smear layer removal between techniques. However, 2.5% NaOCl did not remove smear layer or debris, and no significant differences in debris were observed between manual and rotary techniques.     

The effect of different irrigation protocols on smear layer removal in root canals of primary teeth: a SEM study

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of different irrigation protocols on smear layer removal in root canals of primary teeth by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Material and methods: The study was conducted with 40 extracted maxillary primary incisor teeth divided into four groups (n?=?10) as 1% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 10% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)+1% NaOCl, 6% citric acid (CA)+1% NaOCl, and 0.9% physiological saline (PS). After the irrigation procedures, root canal walls were examined by SEM and the efficacies of irrigation solutions in smear layer removal were scored and compared. Data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis, Friedman and Siegel Castellan tests.

Results: The smear layer removal was found to be statistically more effective in groups of 10% EDTA + 1% NaOCl and 6% CA + 1% NaOCl when compared with the other groups (p?<?.05). Smear removal efficacy was statistically significantly higher in coronal and medium thirds when compared with the apical regions in the experimental groups.

Conclusions: It was concluded that 10% EDTA + 1% NaOCl and 6% CA + 1% NaOCl could be alternative irrigation protocols regarding smear layer removal. However, due to the absence of erosive dentinal changes, it might be suggested that using 6% CA + 1% NaOCl can be recommended compared to 10% EDTA + 1% NaOCl in primary root canals.     

Effect of 17% EDTA and MTAD on intracanal smear layer removal: A scanning electron microscopic study

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of MTAD as the final irrigant to remove the smear layer, compared with that of 17% EDTA, both following root canal irrigation with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). Fifty‐five extracted maxillary and mandibular single‐rooted human teeth were prepared by a crown‐down technique using rotary 0.04 and 0.06 taper nickel‐titanium files. 5.25% sodium hypochlorite was used as the intracanal irrigant. The canals were then treated with 5 mL of one of the following solutions as final rinse: 5.25% sodium hypochlorite, 17% EDTA or MTAD. The presence or absence of smear layer in the coronal, middle and apical portion of each canal was examined with a scanning electron microscope. The results showed that MTAD is an effective final rinse solution for removing the smear layer in canals irrigated with sodium hypochlorite. When 17% EDTA was used as a final rinse, the smear layer was removed from the middle and coronal thirds of canal preparations, but it was less effective in the apical third of the canals.     

Evaluation of canal cleanliness and smear layer removal after the use of the Quantec-E irrigation system and syringe: a comparative scanning electron microscope study

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate canal cleanliness and smear layer removal after use of the Quantec-E irrigation system and to compare the system with traditional irrigation. STUDY DESIGN: Forty anterior teeth were randomly assigned to 4 groups. Group A consisted of 15 teeth that were instrumented with .12, .10, .08, .06 and .04 tapered rotaries while simultaneously irrigated via the Quantec-E irrigation pump with 12 mL of 5.25% NaOCl, followed by 6 mL EDTA 17% in crown-down fashion, with a final flush with 4 mL 5.25% NaOCl. Group B consisted of 15 teeth that were instrumented with the same instrument sequence, and irrigated with the same volumes via traditional needle and syringe. Group C consisted of 5 teeth that were sectioned and examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) without any instrumentation and served as a negative control. Group D consisted of 5 teeth that were instrumented dry, without any irrigation, and served as a positive control. All teeth were sectioned buccolingually and examined with SEM at 700x magnification in the apical, middle, and coronal portions of the canals. Analysis of SEM images was performed by 5 independent examiners using a 4-point scoring system. RESULTS: Irrigation with the Quantec-E irrigation pump resulted in cleaner canal walls, less debris, and more complete removal of the smear layer within the coronal one third, when compared with syringe irrigation. However, no difference was observed in the middle and apical one thirds of the root canal. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the 2 irrigation systems.     

Effects of different irrigation solutions on root dentine microhardness,smear layer removal and erosion

This study aimed to compare the effects of different irrigants on root dentine microhardness, erosion and smear layer removal. A total of 72 root dentine slices were divided into six groups, according to the final irrigants used: Group 1: 17% ethylenediamine tetra‐acetic acid (EDTA) + 2.5% NaOCl, Group 2: 7% maleic acid (MA) + 2.5% sodium hypochloride (NaOCl), Group 3: 1.3% NaOCl + mixture of tetracycline, acid and detergent (MTAD), Group 4: Smear Clear + 2.5% NaOCl, Group 5: 5% NaOCl, Group 6: saline. Vickers microhardness values were measured before and after treatment. In total, 42 root‐halves were prepared for scanning electron microscope to evaluate the amount of smear and erosion in the coronal, middle and apical thirds. Data were analysed using two‐way anova , Duncan and two‐proportion z‐tests. Maleic acid showed the greatest reduction in dentine microhardness (P < 0.05), followed by EDTA and MTAD. EDTA, maleic acid, MTAD and Smear Clear removed smear layer efficiently in the coronal and middle thirds of root canal. However, in the apical region, maleic acid showed more efficient removal of the smear layer than the other irrigants (P < 0.05).     

Effects of irrigation on debris and smear layer on canal walls prepared by two rotary techniques: a scanning electron microscopic study

Debris and smear layer were evaluated in canals prepared with either Lightspeed (LS) or ProFile (PF) rotary instruments. Irrigants used were tap water (group A) or alternating 5.25% NaOCl and 17% EDTA (group B). Apical stops were prepared to size 52.5 in the LS and to size 6 (approximately ISO size 36) in the PF techniques. The roots were split longitudinally and examined at apical, middle and coronal levels for debris and the smear layer using a 5-step scale. Using only water, mean debris scores were similar for LS and PF. In contrast, with EDTA/NaOCl, LS- and PF-prepared canals had similar debris scores at the apical and coronal levels, but there was a significant difference at the middle level. Mean smear layer scores were similar in LS- and PF-shaped canals when water was the sole irrigant. In contrast, with NaOCl and EDTA, mean smear layer scores were significantly different at the apical and middle levels, but not at the coronal level. Neither technique was superior in removing debris, but larger canal preparations obtained in this study with LS instruments enabled a more effective removal of the smear layer in the EDTA-NaOCl group.     

Effect of post-space treatment on retention of fiber posts in different root regions using two self-etching systems

The effect of post-space treatment on the retention of fiber posts in different root regions was evaluated using two self-etching systems. Post spaces were prepared in extracted premolars and then the root canals were subjected to one of the following post-space treatments: (i) water irrigation (control); (ii) etching with 35% phosphoric acid for 30 s; (iii) irrigation with 17% EDTA followed by 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); and (iv) ultrasonic agitation associated with 17% EDTA and 5.25% NaOCl irrigating solutions. The dentin surfaces were examined under scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after different post-space treatments. Fiber posts were then luted in the treated roots using resin cement with either Clearfil SE Bond or Clearfil DC Bond, and the thin-slice push-out test was performed. Scanning electron microscopy showed that all the post-space treatments tested were effective in removal of the smear layer of debris, or sealer/gutta-percha remnants, on the root canal. The apical push-out strength was affected by post-space treatment. Both 35% phosphoric acid etching and ultrasonic agitation in combination with EDTA/NaOCl irrigation improved the apical push-out strength of the fiber post, regardless of the type of self-etching system. A solo irrigation with an EDTA/NaOCl solution resulted in a lower apical push-out strength compared with the other two experimental groups.     

Root canal debridement efficacy of different final irrigation protocols

Al-Ali M, Sathorn C, Parashos P. Root canal debridement efficacy of different final irrigation protocols. International Endodontic Journal,?45, 898-906, 2012. ABSTRACT: Aim To compare the smear layer and debris removal effectiveness of four root canal irrigation protocols as well as their effectiveness in removing remaining soft tissues in curved root canals. Methodology The mesiobuccal and mesial root canals of 107 extracted human maxillary and mandibular molars were instrumented using Mtwo rotary NiTi instruments then randomly divided into four groups according to a final rinse protocol: Group 1 (n?=?28) - manual agitation of 1% NaOCl and 15% EDTA; Group 2 (n?=?26) - CanalBrush agitation of 1% NaOCl and 15% EDTA; Group 3 (n?=?26) - 3% H(2) O(2) alternated with 1% NaOCl; Group 4 (n?=?27) - passive ultrasonic agitation of 1% NaOCl and 15% EDTA. All irrigation protocols were performed in a closed system. Eleven roots per group were prepared and histologically stained (H&E) to assess percentage of remaining pulpal tissues in the apical thirds. The remaining specimens were split longitudinally and examined under scanning electron microscope at ×2000 magnification to assess smear layer and debris removal. Image Pro Plus 6.0 software was used to analyse smear layer and remaining pulp tissue. Debris presence was scored by two blinded investigators using a five-point scale. Data were analysed using Univariate analysis of variance (GenStat 13, α?=?0.05). Results CanalBrush and passive ultrasonic irrigation were equally effective with significantly less smear layer and debris than manual agitation and H(2) O(2) alternated with NaOCl (P?相似文献   

A Comparative Study of Smear Layer Removal and Erosion in Apical Intraradicular Dentine With Three Irrigating Solutions: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Evaluation

IntroductionThis study compared the efficacy of BioPure MTAD (Dentsply Tulsa, Tulsa, OK), 17% EDTA, and 42% citric acid in endodontic smear layer removal and degree of erosion in the apical third of endodontic canals.MethodsNinety-six extracted single-rooted human teeth were randomized into four groups (n = 24) and instrumented using System GT nickel-titanium rotary instruments (Dentsply Tulsa, Tulsa, OK). Each canal was irrigated with one of the following solutions: BioPure MTAD, 17% EDTA, 42% citric acid, or 5.25% NaOCl (control). Next, all specimens were irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl.ResultsEvaluation by scanning electron microscopy showed no significant differences among test irrigants in removing the smear layer. However, the efficacy of BioPure MTAD and 17% EDTA in removing the smear layer was significantly greater than 5.25% NaOCl (control). The erosive effects of irrigating solutions could not be evaluated.ConclusionsIn conclusion, the protocols used in this study were not sufficient to completely remove the smear layer in the apical third of prepared root canals.     

The effect of application time of EDTA and NaOCl on intracanal smear layer removal: an SEM analysis

AIM: To verify, under the scanning electron microscope (SEM), the influence of irrigation time with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) on intracanal smear layer removal. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-one extracted human permanent teeth with single straight root canals were included. The root canals of the teeth were instrumented and, at the end of preparation, were irrigated with 3 mL of 15% EDTA, followed by 3 mL of 1% NaOCl for 1 min (group 1), for 3 min (group 2), and for 5 min (group 3). The canals of teeth in group 4 (control) did not receive the final irrigation. The teeth were sectioned longitudinally and prepared for an SEM. The dentinal wall of cervical, middle and apical thirds was graded according to the amount of debris and smear layer remaining on the walls. The results were analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Conover-Inman tests. RESULTS: In all the canals of experimental groups irrigation with EDTA and NaOCl completely removed the smear layer from the cervical and middle thirds. In the apical third, the dentine surface were partially covered, particularly in the teeth of group 1, where there was significantly more smear layer when compared with the other thirds in the same group (P<0.007). However, the Kruskal-Wallis test showed overall that there were no significant differences between groups 1, 2 and 3 (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: In this limited laboratory study, canal irrigation with EDTA and NaOCl for 1, 3 and 5 min were equally effective in removing the smear layer from the canal walls of straight roots.     

次氯酸钠配合SmearClear清除根管玷污层的研究

目的:比较4种根管冲洗方法清除根管玷污层的效果,研究出有效去除根管玷污层的方法。方法:20个无龋单根前牙随机分为4组,A组:60℃30 g/L次氯酸钠液加170 g/L EDTA,#15K锉提拉冲洗;B组:60℃30 g/L次氯酸钠液加SmearClear,#15K锉提拉冲洗;C组:60℃30 g/L次氯酸钠液加170 g/LEDTA液超声荡洗;D组:60℃30 g/L次氯酸钠液加SmearClear超声荡洗。扫描电镜下放大2 500倍和4 000倍观察根尖1/3、根中1/3和根上1/3玷污层清除情况。按照根管壁玷污层清除情况和根管壁腐蚀程度的分级标准进行统计学分析。结果:①根管壁玷污层清除情况:4组在根上2/3区玷污层均有效去除,各组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),B组根尖1/3基本无玷污层,A、C、D组仅见少部分玷污层被去除,B组与A、C、D组差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);②根管壁腐蚀性比较:C、D组根上2/3区腐蚀度较大,而A、B组未见明显腐蚀。C、D组与A、B组相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),各组根尖1/3根管壁腐蚀度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:SmearClear与60℃30 g/L次氯酸钠液联合应用能更有效的去除根管玷污层,且对根管壁表面结构无明显破坏。     

Effects on smear layer and debris removal with varying volumes of 17% REDTA after rotary instrumentation

The purpose of this study was to quantify the volume of 17% ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) needed to efficiently remove the smear layer after rotary instrumentation, and to determine if additional irrigation has any effect on debris removal. Forty single canal teeth were instrumented with ProFile GT rotary instruments. Experimental groups were irrigated with 1, 3, or 10 ml of 17% EDTA for 1 min, followed by a final rinse with 3 ml of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). Samples were scored for debris remaining and examined under SEM to determine quality of smear layer removal. There were no significant differences among groups when comparing either debris remaining or quality of smear layer removal. EDTA irrigation volume greater than 1 ml did not improve debris removal. Efficient removal of the smear layer was accomplished with a final rinse of 1 ml of 17% EDTA for 1 min, followed by 3 ml of 5.25% NaOCl.     

A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of GT rotary instruments

AIM: The aim of the present study was to assess debris and smear layer remaining following canal preparation with GT rotary instruments. METHODOLOGY: Sixteen freshly extracted single-rooted premolar teeth were instrumented with GT rotary instruments using a crown-down preparation technique. All specimens were flushed with 2 mL of 5% NaOCl between each rotary instrument. At the end of instrumentation the following final irrigation sequence was repeated two times: 2 mL of EDTA + Cetrimide for 1 min (Largal Ultra, Septodont, France) and 2 mL of 5% NaOCl for 5 min. A final flush with saline solution was made to halt any chemical activity. Two other uninstrumented teeth that were not irrigated served as controls. All teeth were split longitudinally and prepared for SEM evaluation. The presence of debris and smear layer was evaluated from photomicrographs at x200 and x1000 magnification taken in the apical, middle and coronal thirds of the canals. Blind evaluation was performed by two trained observers and scores were compiled separately. A five category scoring system for debris and smear layer was used. Values obtained were tabulated and statistical analysis was carried out using a parametric chi-squared test. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the three regions of the root canals (P > 0.05) for debris. Comparison of the removal of the smear layer between the three regions showed that there was a statistically significant difference between all parts, especially between the coronal and apical thirds (P < 0.001). Overall, the coronal sections were cleaner than the middle and apical sections. The uninstrumented canals showed walls completely covered with tissue, confirming that specimen preparation alone did not remove tissue. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of the present study GT rotary instruments removed debris effectively, but left root canal walls covered with smear layer, particularly in the apical third.     

不同pH值乙二胺四乙酸盐对根管玷污层作用的体外研究

目的研究不同pH值的乙二胺四乙酸盐(EDTA)去除根管玷污层的效果。方法60颗离体单根管牙应用逐步后退法进行根管扩大,分别以6组根管冲洗液进行根管冲洗。A组:生理盐水;B组:临床常用的根管冲洗剂5.25%NaOCl+3%H2O2;C组:pH=6.5的15%EDTA;D组:pH=13的15%EDTA;E组:pH=6.5的15%EDTA+5.25%NaOCl+3%H2O2;F组:pH=13的15%EDTA+5.25%NaOCl+3%H2O2,然后将牙体沿颊舌向纵劈,应用扫描电镜对不同冲洗液在根冠1/3、中1/3、尖1/3部位玷污层去除的效果进行观察。结果临床常用的根管冲洗剂对根管玷污层几乎无清除效果,C、D、E、F组对根冠1/3、中1/3玷污层均有清除效果,其中C组优于D组,E组效果最佳,但它们对根尖1/3的部位清除效果均不显著,而且组间无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论pH=6.5的15%EDTA+5.25%NaOCl+3%H2O2对根管玷污层的去除效果最好。     

Effectiveness of oxidative potential water as a root canal irrigant

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of oxidative potential water (OPW) as an irrigant, based on its ability to remove the smear layer and/or debris from instrumented root canals. METHODOLOGY: One hundred and twenty root canals from extracted human maxillary incisors were instrumented using a conventional step-back technique with irrigation from sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) or oxidative potential water (OPW). After instrumentation, the canals were irrigated by syringe or ultrasound using 15% EDTA or OPW as an irrigant. The volume of each irrigant used for syringe irrigation was 10, 20, and 30 mL, respectively, whilst the duration for ultrasonic irrigation was 1, 3, and 5 min, respectively. After irrigation, each root was split longitudinally in two with cutting pliers, and the specimens were prepared for SEM observation. The presence of debris and smear layer on each canal wall was assessed using a three-point scale for each parameter. RESULTS: Smear layer was effectively removed with EDTA both introduced via syringe and via ultrasonic irrigation. A similar effect was observed with OPW via syringe irrigation following instrumentation with 5% NaOCl. The canal walls in any of these cases showed open and patent dentinal tubules following smear layer removal. Some specimens irrigated with EDTA exhibited the effect of demineralization on the dentine resulting in funnelling of tubule orifices. Syringe irrigation was more effective in smear layer removal, except for ultrasonic irrigation with 15% EDTA, whilst ultrasonic irrigation was more effective in debris removal including the use of OPW as irrigant following instrumentation with 5% NaOCl. Neither syringe nor ultrasonic irrigation with OPW following instrumentation with OPW removed smear layer or debris effectively. CONCLUSIONS: The most effective irrigation technique for smear removal was 15% EDTA irrigation by means of syringe following instrumentation with 5% NaOCl solution. However, the most effective irrigation technique for debris removal was ultrasonic irrigation regardless of irrigant used. OPW irrigation by means of syringe following instrumentation with 5% NaOCl showed a similar effect to that of 15% EDTA irrigation for removal of smear layer and debris.