Summary & Conclusion This library dissertation on smear layer can thus be summed up briefly into the following

points: 1) A layer of sludge material is always formed on the instrumented root canal walls. This layer has been called as SMEAR A!ER. "t has an amorphous# irregular and granular appearance under the scanning electron microscope. $) Smear layer is not a strict barrier to bacteria. "t only delays# but does not abolish the action of the disinfectants. %) "t may interfere with thorough disinfection of the root canal system and dentinal tubules# by pre&enting penetration of intracanal medications. "t also may interfere with adhesion and penetration of root canal sealers into the dentinal tubules. Thus# it may influence the 'uality of the obturation. () )hen the smear layer is not remo&ed# it may slowly disintegrate and dissol&e around a lea*ing filling material# or it may be remo&ed by bacterial by+products such as acids and en,ymes. -) .ifferent solutions and techni'ues ha&e been used to remo&e the smear layer# which include chemical# ultrasonic and laser techni'ues+none of which is totally effecti&e or has recei&ed uni&ersal acceptance. /) E&en though 0a12l has a high sol&ent action# it cannot remo&e the smear layer. 3) 1rganic acids are not as effecti&e as chelating agents for the remo&al of the smear layer. 4) 5indings about the effecti&eness of ultrasonics in smear layer remo&al are contro&ersial.

1/-

Summary & Conclusion 6) Se'uential use of 0a12l and E.TA solutions has been recommended to remo&e the Endodontic smear layer. After disinfection of the root canal system# if ad&ised# one may recreate a new smear layer by circumferential hand+filing or the use of rotary instruments. 17)1nce the smear layer is remo&ed# there is always a ris* of reinfecting the dentinal tubules if the seal fails. 11)5urther studies are certainly needed to establish a correlation between endodontic smear layer and clinical performance of root canals. 1$)"n ca&ities and on surfaces of dentin prepared for restorations and abutments# the superficial smear layer should be remo&ed and the remaining smear plugs treated antiseptically. The ad&antage of this is that: The surface is easier to dry with a blast of air as outward flow of fluid is a&oided. "mpro&ed adaptation is obtained for lining material and luting cements. There is a reduced ris* of bacteria multiplying in the smear layer and in a fluid gap between the lining and the surface of cut dentin. .eminerali,ing cleansers that remo&e the smear plugs and widen the tubular apertures should be a&oided. The dentin will be wetter and in the case of bacterial contamination# there will be an in&asion of bacteria into dentinal tubules. 5urthermore# the surface will become se&eral times more permeable to to8ins diffusing to the pulp. Therefore# with the cascade of new restorati&e products being un&eiled almost monthly# endodontists must be able to e&aluate the potential of these products for successful integration into their procedures. This e&aluation should be based on a *nowledge of how the new products relate to the smear layer formed along the root canal walls. 9owe&er# other branches of restorati&e
1//

Summary & Conclusion dentistry may suggest retention of the smear layer. Although pulpally infected teeth ha&e been successfully treated for generations in the presence of smear layer# it has become accepted practice now in endodontics to remo&e the smear layer. Still# further clinical in&stigations are needed to determine the role of smear layer in the outcome of root canal therapy. 9ence# in light of the current contro&ersies surrounding the :smear layer; it would be apt to conclude by 'uoting: What we think we know today shatters the errors and blunders of yesterday and is tomorrow discarded as worthless. So we go from larger mistakes to smaller mistakesso long as we do not lose courage. This is true of all therapy; no method is final. + 5redric* <ensen

1/3