Cargando…

Comparative analysis of endodontic smear layer removal efficacy of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, 7% maleic acid, and 2% chlorhexidine using scanning electron microscope: An in vitro study

AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of different endodontic irrigants in the removal of smear layer through scanning electron microscopic image analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present in vitro study was carried out on 45 single-rooted extracted human mandibular prem...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Attur, Kailash, Joy, Mathew T., Karim, Riyas, Anil Kumar, V. J., Deepika, C., Ahmed, Haseena
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/PMC5022395/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27652250
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2231-0762.189755
Descripción
Sumario:AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficiency of different endodontic irrigants in the removal of smear layer through scanning electron microscopic image analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present in vitro study was carried out on 45 single-rooted extracted human mandibular premolar teeth with single canal and complete root formation. Teeth were randomly assigned to three groups with 15 teeth in each group. Group I samples were irrigated with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic (EDTA) irrigation, Group II with 7% maleic acid irrigation, and Group III with 2% chlorhexidine irrigation. Scanning electron microscope evaluation was done for the assessment of smear layer removal in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds. Comparison of the smear layer removal between the three different groups was done by Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by Mann–Whitney U test for comparing individual groups. A P value less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Statistically significant difference was seen between the two test groups (17% EDTA vs. 7% maleic acid and 17% EDTA vs. 2% chlorhexidine) in smear layer removal at coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root canal. The most efficient smear layer removal was seen in Group I with 17% EDTA irrigation compared with other groups (P < 0.05) and the least by 2% chlorhexidine. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that 17% EDTA efficiently removes the smear layer from root canal walls.