Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 3676
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 87-90
Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission21-Sep-2015
Date of Decision19-Nov-2015
Date of Acceptance01-Dec-2015
Date of Web Publication5-Jan-2016
 

   Abstract 

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.

Keywords: Endodontic irrigation; ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; MTAD; QMix 2 in 1; scanning electron microscopy; smear layer

How to cite this article:
Vemuri S, Kolanu SK, Varri S, Pabbati RK, Penumaka R, Bolla N. Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study. J Conserv Dent 2016;19:87-90

How to cite this URL:
Vemuri S, Kolanu SK, Varri S, Pabbati RK, Penumaka R, Bolla N. Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2016 [cited 2022 Aug 13];19:87-90. Available from: https://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2016/19/1/87/173207

   Introduction Top


Successful endodontic therapy depends on thorough chemo-mechanical preparation as well as three-dimensional obturation that provides a complete sealing of the root canal system. [1]

During cleaning and shaping procedure instrumentation with various root canal instruments leaves an amorphous, granular, and irregular layer covering root dentin known as smear layer that contains inorganic and organic material. The first researchers to describe the smear layer on the surface of instrumented root canals were McComb and Smith. [2] The smear layer may adversely affect the disinfection of dentin walls while blocking irrigants and sealants from entering dentinal tubules. In addition, it may increase post obturation microleakage, and may serve as a source of nutrients for some species of intra-canal microbiota. [3]

Removal of smear layer after root canal instrumentation and before canal obturation improves the adaptation of root filling materials to the canal walls, resulting in a superior seal. [4] So far the most commonly used method of smear layer removal has been the chemical method using chelating agents, with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) being the most common agent used. [5] The most advocated combination of 17% EDTA plus 5.25% NaOCl removes the smear layer completely in the coronal and middle thirds but is less effective in the apical third. [6]

For effective removal of smear layer apart from EDTA new irrigating agents such as QMix 2 in 1, MTAD, have been introduced as final irrigants.

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the smear layer removal efficacy of different final irrigating solutions.


   Materials and Methods Top


Forty human single-rooted mandibular premolar teeth were selected for this study. They were decoronated to get the stable reference point and to standardize the root canal length of 14 mm. All specimen teeth were randomly divided into four groups as follows:

  • Group 1: Saline.
  • Group 2: EDTA.
  • Group 3: BioPure MTAD.
  • Group 4: QMix 2 in 1.


Patency of the root canal is established by passing a stainless steel number 15 K-file (Kendo, Germany) just beyond the apex of all canals. Working lengths were determined by subtracting 1 mm from that length. Canals were prepared using ProTaper rotary system (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). Each canal was prepared up to an apical preparation of #F3. Three percent NaOCl (Vishal dentocare Pvt., Ltd., India) irrigant was used between each subsequent file size in all experimental groups while saline was the sole irrigant in Group 1.

To determine the effects of final irrigating solutions on the surface of root canals after instrumentation, the canals were treated with 5 ml of the respective irrigant for 3 min. The irrigating solution was delivered using a 30-gauge side-vented needle (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK, USA) passively placed to within the apical third of the root canals.

The canals were then dried with paper points. Nonpenetrating grooves were made in all specimen teeth at the cement-enamel junction (CEJ) and longitudinally on the buccal and lingual aspects. The teeth were then longitudinally split into two halves using chisel and mallet and the half containing the greater part of the apex was selected as the representative sample for each group and they were evaluated under scanning electronic microscope.

Scanning electron microscope evaluation

Coded samples were mounted on metallic stubs, gold sputtered and viewed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Photographs at magnifications of ×1000 were taken for each specimen in the apical third (4 mm from root apex). The images at ×1000 magnification were then analyzed for the amount of smear layer present [Figure 1]a, b and [Figure 2]a, b. The amount of smear layer remaining on the surface of the root canal and dentinal tubules was scored according to a three score system developed by Torabinejad et al. [7]
Figure 1: (a) Scanning electron microscope picture of saline, (b) Scanning electron microscope picture of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid


Click here to view
Figure 2: (a) Scanning electron microscope picture of MTAD, (b) Scanning electron microscope picture of QMix 2 in 1


Click here to view


  • Score 1: No smear layer - No smear layer was detected on the surface of the root canal, and all tubules were open.
  • Score 2: Moderate smear layer - No smear layer on root canal walls but tubules contained debris.
  • Score 3: Heavy smear layer - Smear layer covered the root canal wall surface and the tubules.



   Results Top


Statistical analysis was done using Kruskal-Wallis H test and Mann-Whitney U-test using software version SPSS 17.0 version (SPSS Inc., Chicago) [Table 1] and [Table 2]. The results showed that QMix 2 in 1 (Group 4) showed least smear layer scores (1.30 ± 0.48) when compared to others. This was followed by MTAD (2.00 ± 0.00), EDTA (2.40 ± 0.52), and saline showed highest smear layer scores (3.00 ± 0.00).
Table 1: Smear layer scores for experimental groups


Click here to view
Table 2: Comparison between groups


Click here to view



   Discussion Top


During mechanical instrumentation smear layer formation occurs on the root canal dentinal wall occluding dentinal tubules, for efficient disinfection and sealing of the root canal system its removal is necessary. [8]

Irrigation is an important step during and after instrumentation for effective removal of smear layer and also for lubrication of root canal system. [9]

NaOCl is the traditional irrigant which is used most commonly, however due to its inability to remove inorganic part of smear layer other irrigants were introduced. [10] There are different final irrigating solutions which are used after instrumentation for effective smear layer removal.

QMix 2 in 1 is a new root canal irrigating solution, and it contains a mixture of a bisbiguanide an antimicrobial agent, a polyaminocarboxylic acid, a calcium-chelating agent, saline, and a surfactant. [11]

Eliot et al. [12] evaluated the effectiveness of the three different formulations of QMix on the removal of canal wall smear layer and compared to a standard solution of 17% EDTA. SEM analysis showed the effectiveness of all three QMix formulations were superior to EDTA in smear layer removal and exposure of dentinal tubules in the root canal system in single-rooted teeth.

Kolosowski et al. analyzed the precipitate formation on the surface and in the tubules of dentin irrigated with sodium hypochlorite and a final rinse of chlorhexidine or QMix and concluded no precipitates or PCA were detected with QMix and NaOCl in dentinal tubules. [13]

Stojicic et al. [14] evaluated efficacy of a novel root canal irrigant, QMix, against Enterococcus faecalis and its ability to remove smear layer was examined, using SEM. It was concluded that QMix and NaOCl were superior to CHX and MTAD under laboratory conditions in killing E. faecalis and ability to remove smear layer by QMix was comparable to EDTA. This was also supported by studies done by Ballal et al., [15] who showed that wetting of root canal dentin was better with QMix 2 in 1 due to its low surface tension. These studies correlate with our study; QMix 2 in 1 showing better smear layer removal compared with other final irrigating solutions and there is a significant difference among all the groups.

Dai et al., [16] evaluated the Smear and debris scores of QMix in the coronal third, middle third, and apical third of root canals using two versions of QMix 2 in 1 (QMix I [pH = 8], QMix II [pH = 7.5]) using SEM. It was concluded that the two versions of the experimental antimicrobial (QMix) are as effective as 17% EDTA in removing canal wall smear layers from the entire root canal space in straight root canals after the initial use of NaOCl as the initial rinse.

BioPure MTAD is a mixture of tetracycline isomer (3% doxycycline), 4.25% citric acid, detergent (0.5% polysorbate 80). MTAD has smear layer removal and antimicrobial properties. In this product, doxycycline hyclate is used instead of its free-base doxycycline monohydrate, to increase the water solubility. It is considered to be clinically effective and a biocompatible endodontic irrigant. [17]

In this study MTAD shown to be next to QMix 2 in 1 in removing smear layer, this may be because of its low surface tension (34.5 mJ/m 2), These results correlate with the study conducted by Paul et al., [18] who showed that MTAD is better irrigating solution removing smear layer even in apical third.

Shenoy et al., [19] compared the smear layer removal efficacy of Tublicid plus, MTAD, EDTA and found that Tublicid plus and MTAD are better when compared to EDTA.


   Conclusion Top


Within the limitations of this study, it was observed that among the final irrigating solutions used QMix 2 in 1 displayed effective smear layer removal when compared to EDTA, MTAD and Saline.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Hashem AA, Ghoneim AG, Lutfy RA, Fouda MY. The effect of different irrigating solutions on bond strength of two root canal-filling systems. J Endod 2009;35:537-40.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
McComb D, Smith DC. A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod 1975;1: 238-42.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Mozayeni MA, Zadeh YM, Paymanpour P, Ashraf H, Mozayani M. Evaluation of push-out bond strength of AH26 sealer using MTAD and combination of NaOCl and EDTA as final irrigation. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2013;10:359-63.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Zare Jahromi M, Barekatain M, Ebrahimi M, Askari B. The effect of three irrigants on the coronal leakage of the root canals system irrigants. Iran Endod J 2010;5:121-4.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Violich DR, Chandler NP. The smear layer in endodontics - A review. Int Endod J 2010;43:2-15.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Goldberg F, Abramovich A. Analysis of the effect of EDTAC on the dentinal walls of the root canal. J Endod 1977;3:101-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Torabinejad M, Khademi AA, Babagoli J, Cho Y, Johnson WB, Bozhilov K, et al. A new solution for the removal of the smear layer. J Endod 2003;29:170-5.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Vivacqua-Gomes N, Ferraz CC, Gomes BP, Zaia AA, Teixeira FB, Souza-Filho FJ. Influence of irrigants on the coronal microleakage of laterally condensed Gutta-percha root fillings. Int Endod J 2002;35:791-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Karunakaran JV, Kumar SS, Kumar M, Chandrasekhar S, Namitha D. The effects of various irrigating solutions on intra-radicular dentinal surface: An SEM analysis. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2012;4 Suppl 2:S125-30.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Luddin N, Ahmed HM. The antibacterial activity of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis: A review on agar diffusion and direct contact methods. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:9-16.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
11.
Chandrasekhar V, Amulya V, Rani VS, Prakash TJ, Ranjani AS, Gayathri Ch. Evaluation of biocompatibility of a new root canal irrigant QMix™ 2 in 1 - An in vivo study. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:36-40.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
12.
Eliot C, Hatton JF, Stewart GP, Hildebolt CF, Jane Gillespie M, Gutmann JL. The effect of the irrigant QMix on removal of canal wall smear layer: An ex vivo study. Odontology 2014;102:232-40.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Kolosowski KP, Sodhi RN, Kishen A, Basrani BR. Qualitative analysis of precipitate formation on the surface and in the tubules of dentin irrigated with sodium hypochlorite and a final rinse of chlorhexidine or QMiX. J Endod 2014;40:2036-40.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Stojicic S, Shen Y, Qian W, Johnson B, Haapasalo M. Antibacterial and smear layer removal ability of a novel irrigant, QMiX. Int Endod J 2012;45:363-71.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Ballal NV, Tweeny A, Khechen K, Prabhu KN, Satyanarayan, Tay FR. Wettability of root canal sealers on intraradicular dentine treated with different irrigating solutions. J Dent 2013;41:556-60.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Dai L, Khechen K, Khan S, Gillen B, Loushine BA, Wimmer CE, et al. The effect of QMix, an experimental antibacterial root canal irrigant, on removal of canal wall smear layer and debris. J Endod 2011;37:80-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Singla MG, Garg A, Gupta S. MTAD in endodontics: An update review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;112:e70-6.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Paul ML, Mazumdar D, Niyogi A, Baranwal AK. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of different irrigants including MTAD under SEM. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:336-41.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
19.
Shenoy A, Ahmaduddin, Bolla N, Raj S, Mandava P, Nayak S. Effect of final irrigating solution on smear layer removal and penetrability of the root canal sealer. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:40-4.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  

Top
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sreeha Kaluva Kolanu
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Takkellapadu, Guntur - 522 509, Andhra Pradesh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.173207

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]

This article has been cited by
1 Influence of chelating solutions on tubular dentin sealer penetration: A systematic review with network meta-analysis
Felipe Souza Matos, Camila Maria Peres de Rosatto, Thaís Christina Cunha, Maria Tereza Campos Vidigal, Cauane Blumenberg, Luiz Renato Paranhos, Camilla Christian Gomes Moura
Australian Endodontic Journal. 2021;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 The effect of 17% EDTA and QMiX ultrasonic activation on smear layer removal and sealer penetration: ex vivo study
Felipe de Souza Matos, Fabrício Rutz da Silva, Luiz Renato Paranhos, Camilla Christian Gomes Moura, Eduardo Bresciani, Marcia Carneiro Valera
Scientific Reports. 2020; 10(1)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Removal of the root canal smear layer using Carisolv III and sodium hypochlorite
Di Wu, Yong-zhen Ma, Jing Jia, Bing-chang Xin, Da-shan Wang, De-gang Sun, Ling-xiang Wang
Medicine. 2020; 99(22): e20372
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Effect of QMix irrigant in removal of smear layer in root canal system: a systematic review of in vitro studies
Margaret Soo Yee Chia, Abhishek Parolia, Benjamin Syek Hur Lim, Jayakumar Jayaraman, Isabel Cristina Celerino de Moraes Porto
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics. 2020; 45(3)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of Smear Layer Removal Ability of Novel Irrigant QMix compared with Others at Apical Third of the Root
Sreeha K Kolanu, Bolla Nagesh, Phani HD Vaaka, Swapnika Polineni
World Journal of Dentistry. 2018; 9(3): 220
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5299    
    Printed132    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded491    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 5    

Recommend this journal