Historical Perspective

The earliest studies on the effects of various instruments on dental tissues were those reported by Lammie and Drycott (1952) and Street (1953). After the use of different burs and abrasive stones, these authors, using powdered graphite, disclosed ridges and troughs on the cut surfaces using light microscopy and epiillumination. The pattern and magnitude of the grooves varied, with diamond abrasives producing the most striking anomalies. Peyton and Mortell (1956) substituted a thin metal (copper) coating for the graphite and examined the cut surfaces of the teeth with reflected light microscopy. They found that diamonds produced relatively deep and uniform grooves whereas burs showed less evidence of grooves and a tendency towards non-uniform and uneven cutting. There are significant limitations to the amount of morphological detail that can be disclosed by light microscopy. hile others, for example, Cantwell, Alpin and Ma ler (196!), continued to use metal coating techni!ues and light optical methods, it was not until Scott and "#$eil (1961) reported a transmission electron microscope study that a ma"or advance was made in the description of the morphological detail of cut surfaces of teeth. They found no marked differences in surface texture left from the action of different instruments. This study was conducted during the advent of research into adhesive restorative materials. #n this context, Ma%%ler and S&inner (1961) emphasi$ed %cott and &'(eil's conclusion that a knowledge of the structural !ualities of the cut surfaces of the teeth is a key for formulating adhesive restorative systems. The introduction of the scanning electron microscope and energy dispersive x-ray analysis marked a significant technological advance in instrumentation. This instrument is ideally suited to detailing surface morphology and identifying surface composition. 'oyde, Swit%(r and Stewart (1963) appeared to have been among the )#*%T to describe in greater detail, using %+,, the nature of the surface deposits in situ and have also been the first to describe and demonstrate the presence of what they called a -smear layer. on surfaces of cut enamel. %uch a
/

Historical Perspective

layer was readily removed with sodium hypochlorite, leading them to conclude that an organic layer containing apatite particles was deposited or smeared on the enamel through frictional heat generated during cutting. They believed the heterogeneous nature of enamel was the source of the smeared components. 'oyde and i% cowor&er% (1963) attributed smearing of enamel to melting of the tissue by frictional heat. #ndeed, studies have shown that temperature will rise upto 0112 in dentin when it's cut without a coolant. This value is significantly lower than the melting point of apatitie (3411-35112) and has led most to conclude that smearing is a physicochemical phenomenon rather than a thermal transformation of apatite (Pearlman, 19)6) involving mechanical shearing and thermal degradation of the protein (*ateo%ian, 19)6). 6lastic flow of hydroxyapatite is believed to occur at lower temperatures than its melting point (+iric , 19)67 ,e%twood, 19)6) and may also be a contributing factor to smearing. 8sing replication techni!ues, Pro-en.a and Sardana (1966) also evaluated means of removing debris from enamel and dentin after the use of cutting instruments. They reported variation in the degree to which debris was removed. 9etergents were relatively ineffective, ethylene diamine left behind a film, and 1.3 ( hydrochloric acid was too destructive in its action7 hydrogen peroxide appeared to be the most effective agent. hile speculations were made that the dentinal tubules were probably packed with cutting debris, it was significant that no reference was made to the existence of a smear layer. 2learly, the indirect collodion techni!ue failed to disclose this feature, thus emphasi$ing the importance of the %+, in studying such a phenomenon. $el%on (1966) and /i%man (1966) described the dynamics of cutting dental tissues and appeared to imply the existence of an altered surface layer due to elastic and plastic deformation of the tissue.

Historical Perspective

+ic& and ot er% (19)!) used an electron microprobe with a scanning electron microscope attachment to !uantify and identify cutting debris on tooth surfaces. They confirmed previous reports that surfaces abraded with diamonds were rougher than those cut with tungsten carbide burs. %urfaces cut dry were rougher and more smeared than those in which water was used as a coolant. +ic& and i% cowor&er% (19)!) found the smear layer to be composed of an organic film less than 1.4 m thick. #ncluded within it were particles of apatite ranging from 1.4 to 34 m. %uch layers were present on all surfaces though they were not necessarily continuous. The !uantity of the debris did not seem to differ significantly whether diamond or carbide burs were used or whether a coolant was utili$ed. %everal studies, for example, 'oyde (19)3) and *ron%tad and Leidal (19)0), continued to confirm the presence of smear layers on operatively prepared dental tissues. 1one%, Lo.dan and 'oyde (19)2) also showed that smear layers were common on enamel and dentin following the use of periodontal instruments. McCom2 and Smit (19)5) observed this layer on the wall of instrumented root canals and reported that it was similar in appearance to coronal smear layer. They were the first to describe this smeared layer in instrumented root canals. They reported that it was composed of dentin, pulp, and bacterial remnants. They also noted its poor adhesion to the canal wall and concluded it was an unsatisfactory surface for mechanical or chemical bonding. #ts removal was suggested to facilitate canal obturation. &thers have also shown smear layers after the use of endodontic instrumentation. (3oldman and ot er%, 1942). +iric (19)6) and 5o2lit. and i% cowor&er% (19)6) detailed the role of friction and abrasion in the drilling of teeth. They accounted for the formation of smear layers, especially in dentin, by a brittle and ductile transition and alternating
0

Historical Perspective

rupture and transfer of apatite and collagen matrix onto the surface. 9entin, comprising approximately :4; collagen matrix and water, is a more abundant source of protein than enamel, which contains approximately <; protein matrix and water. 9entin matrix may contribute to smears found on enamel. =ater Mader et al (1940) reported that the smear surface layer thickness was generally found to be 3 to <m. 6acking of smear debris into the underlying dentinal tubules was present to varying depths.

>