Cargando…

Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study

AIM: The aim of this in vitro study is to compare the smear layer removal efficacy of different irrigating solutions at the apical third of the root canal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty human single-rooted mandibular premolar teeth were taken and decoronated to standardize the canal length to 14 mm....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vemuri, Sayesh, Kolanu, Sreeha Kaluva, Varri, Sujana, Pabbati, Ravi Kumar, Penumaka, Ramesh, Bolla, Nagesh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4760023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957801
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.173207
_version_ 1782416832468090880
author Vemuri, Sayesh
Kolanu, Sreeha Kaluva
Varri, Sujana
Pabbati, Ravi Kumar
Penumaka, Ramesh
Bolla, Nagesh
author_facet Vemuri, Sayesh
Kolanu, Sreeha Kaluva
Varri, Sujana
Pabbati, Ravi Kumar
Penumaka, Ramesh
Bolla, Nagesh
author_sort Vemuri, Sayesh
collection PubMed
description AIM: The aim of this in vitro study is to compare the smear layer removal efficacy of different irrigating solutions at the apical third of the root canal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty human single-rooted mandibular premolar teeth were taken and decoronated to standardize the canal length to 14 mm. They were prepared by ProTaper rotary system to an apical preparation of file size F3. Prepared teeth were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10); saline (Group 1; negative control), ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Group 2), BioPure MTAD (Group 3), and QMix 2 in 1 (Group 4). After final irrigation with tested irrigants, the teeth were split into two halves longitudinally and observed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) for the removal of smear layer. The SEM images were then analyzed for the amount of smear layer present using a three score system. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data are analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Intergroup comparison of groups showed statistically significant difference in the smear layer removal efficacy of irrigants tested. QMix 2 in 1 is most effective in removal of smear layer when compared to other tested irrigants. CONCLUSION: QMix 2 in 1 is the most effective final irrigating solution for smear layer removal.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4760023
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47600232016-03-08 Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study Vemuri, Sayesh Kolanu, Sreeha Kaluva Varri, Sujana Pabbati, Ravi Kumar Penumaka, Ramesh Bolla, Nagesh J Conserv Dent Original Article AIM: The aim of this in vitro study is to compare the smear layer removal efficacy of different irrigating solutions at the apical third of the root canal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty human single-rooted mandibular premolar teeth were taken and decoronated to standardize the canal length to 14 mm. They were prepared by ProTaper rotary system to an apical preparation of file size F3. Prepared teeth were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10); saline (Group 1; negative control), ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Group 2), BioPure MTAD (Group 3), and QMix 2 in 1 (Group 4). After final irrigation with tested irrigants, the teeth were split into two halves longitudinally and observed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) for the removal of smear layer. The SEM images were then analyzed for the amount of smear layer present using a three score system. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data are analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Intergroup comparison of groups showed statistically significant difference in the smear layer removal efficacy of irrigants tested. QMix 2 in 1 is most effective in removal of smear layer when compared to other tested irrigants. CONCLUSION: QMix 2 in 1 is the most effective final irrigating solution for smear layer removal. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4760023/ /pubmed/26957801 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.173207 Text en Copyright: © Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Vemuri, Sayesh
Kolanu, Sreeha Kaluva
Varri, Sujana
Pabbati, Ravi Kumar
Penumaka, Ramesh
Bolla, Nagesh
Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study
title Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study
title_full Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study
title_fullStr Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study
title_full_unstemmed Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study
title_short Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study
title_sort effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: a scanning electron microscope study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4760023/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26957801
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.173207
work_keys_str_mv AT vemurisayesh effectofdifferentfinalirrigatingsolutionsonsmearlayerremovalinapicalthirdofrootcanalascanningelectronmicroscopestudy
AT kolanusreehakaluva effectofdifferentfinalirrigatingsolutionsonsmearlayerremovalinapicalthirdofrootcanalascanningelectronmicroscopestudy
AT varrisujana effectofdifferentfinalirrigatingsolutionsonsmearlayerremovalinapicalthirdofrootcanalascanningelectronmicroscopestudy
AT pabbatiravikumar effectofdifferentfinalirrigatingsolutionsonsmearlayerremovalinapicalthirdofrootcanalascanningelectronmicroscopestudy
AT penumakaramesh effectofdifferentfinalirrigatingsolutionsonsmearlayerremovalinapicalthirdofrootcanalascanningelectronmicroscopestudy
AT bollanagesh effectofdifferentfinalirrigatingsolutionsonsmearlayerremovalinapicalthirdofrootcanalascanningelectronmicroscopestudy