We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Chinese Journal of Dental Research
Dear readers,

our online journals are moving. The new (and old) issues of all journals can be found at
In most cases you can log in there directly with your e-mail address and your current password. Otherwise we ask you to register again. Thank you very much.

Your Quintessence Publishing House
Chin J Dent Res 12 (2009), No. 1     26. June 2009
Chin J Dent Res 12 (2009), No. 1  (26.06.2009)

Page 45-49

SEM Evaluation of Canal Cleanliness Following Use of Pro Taper Hand-operated Rotary Instruments and Stainless Steel K-files
Huang, Qi Ling / Zhang, Xiu Qin / Deng, Guo Zhen / Huang, Shi Guang
Objective: To assess debris and smear layer remaining following canal preparation with ProTaper hand-operated rotary instruments and stainless steel K-files.
Methods: Sixty freshly extracted single-rooted mandibular premolars due to orthodontic treatment were randomly assigned to three groups of 20 premolars each. The canals were prepared by a rotary or manual ProTaper system using a crown-down technique, or by stainless steel K-files using a step-back technique. After each instrument, the root canals were flushed with 2 ml of a 5.25% NaOCl solution and at the end of instrumentation with 2 ml of a 5.25% NaOCl and 5 ml of distilled water. The amount of debris and smear layer were evaluated at the apical, middle and coronal regions by scanning electron microscopic photomicrographs and the data were analysed separately using Walloon's test.
Results: In the coronal and middle thirds, both ProTaper groups achieved better results than the K-file group, and there was no significant difference between the two ProTaper groups. In the apical third, no significant difference for debris and smear layer was found among the three groups.
Conclusion: Under the conditions of the present study, ProTaper hand-operated and rotary instruments resulted in relatively good cleaning in the coronal and middle thirds, but there was no difference among the three instruments in the apical third.

Keywords: canal preparation, cleanliness, nickel-titanium (NiTi), scanning electron microscope (SEM)