The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of SmearOFF solution on smear layer removal by using different irrigation activation techniques. One hundred and twenty mandibular premolars were decoronated, and instrumented with Reciproc up to size 50. Then, the specimens were divided into 6 groups according to the final irrigation activation technique: Group 1: SmearOFF + Conventional syringe irrigation (CSI); Group 2: SmearOFF + Sonic activation (SA); Group 3: SmearOFF + Passive ultrasonic activation (PUA); Group 4:17% EDTA + CSI; Group 5:17% EDTA + SA, and Group 6:17% EDTA + PUA. Teeth were split longitudinally, and specimens were observed under scanning electron microscope. Images were taken from the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the teeth with 1,000× magnification and analyzed using ImageJ program to calculate total open dentinal tubule areas. Three‐way ANOVA test was applied to reveal any significant differences among solutions, activation techniques and root thirds. There was no statistically significant difference among the groups in terms of irrigation solutions (p > .05). There was a statistically significant difference between PUA and CSI groups (p < .05). However, no significant difference was observed between PUA and SA, or between SA and CSI (p > .05). All experimental procedures were most effective in the middle region of the root, followed by cervical and apical thirds (p < .05). PUA showed higher efficacy in smear layer removal compared with CSI. SmearOFF and 17% EDTA showed similar results. The best results in removing smear layer were obtained in the middle region of the root.

中文翻译：

---

SmearOFF 的定量分析和不同的灌溉激活技术去除涂抹层：扫描电子显微镜研究。

本研究的目的是评估 SmearOFF 溶液通过使用不同的灌溉激活技术去除污迹层的有效性。120 颗下颌前磨牙进行了脱冠，并使用 Reciproc 进行了最大尺寸 50 的检测。然后，根据最终冲洗激活技术将样本分为 6 组： 第 1 组：SmearOFF + 常规注射器冲洗 (CSI)；第 2 组：SmearOFF + Sonic 激活 (SA)；第 3 组：SmearOFF + 被动超声激活 (PUA)；第 4 组：17% EDTA + CSI；组 5:17% EDTA + SA 和组 6:17% EDTA + PUA。将牙齿纵向劈开，在扫描电镜下观察标本。图像取自牙齿的冠状、中间和根尖 1/3，000 倍放大率并使用 ImageJ 程序进行分析以计算总开放牙本质小管面积。应用三向方差分析测试来揭示解决方案、激活技术和根三分之一之间的任何显着差异。各组间灌溉溶液的差异无统计学意义（p  > .05）。PUA 组和 CSI 组之间存在统计学上的显着差异 ( p  < .05)。然而，PUA 和 SA 之间或 SA 和 CSI 之间没有观察到显着差异（p  > .05）。所有实验程序在根的中间区域最有效，其次是颈部和根尖的三分之一 ( p  < .05)。与 CSI 相比，PUA 在去除涂抹层方面表现出更高的功效。SmearOFF 和 17% EDTA 显示出相似的结果。在根部中部区域去除污迹层的效果最好。