| |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
Sayesh Vemuri, Sreeha Kaluva Kolanu, Sujana Varri, Ravi Kumar Pabbati, Ramesh Penumaka, Nagesh Bolla
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India
Click here for correspondence address and email
| Date of Submission | 21-Sep-2015 |
| Date of Decision | 19-Nov-2015 |
| Date of Acceptance | 01-Dec-2015 |
| Date of Web Publication | 5-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 2023 Oct 2];19:87-90. Available from: https://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2016/19/1/87/173207 |
| Introduction | |  |
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 | | |
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 | | |
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).
| Discussion | | |
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 | | |
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 | | |
| 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.  |
| 2. | McComb D, Smith DC. A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod 1975;1: 238-42. [ 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. |
| 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. |
| 5. | Violich DR, Chandler NP. The smear layer in endodontics - A review. Int Endod J 2010;43:2-15. |
| 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. [ 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. [ PUBMED]  |
| 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. [ PUBMED] |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| 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. [ PUBMED] |
| 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. [ PUBMED] |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sreeha Kaluva Kolanu
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Takkellapadu, Guntur - 522 509, Andhra Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.173207
[Figure 1], [Figure 2]
[Table 1], [Table 2] |
|
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis of Smear Layer Removal Ability of Conventional Endodontic Irrigation Regimen, MTAD, and QMix™ Versus a Mixture of Azadirachta indica and Citrus limon: An In Vitro Study |
|
| Nagammai Meyappan, Mageshwari Mahadevan, Niranjana Devi Manimaran, Benin Paulaian, Rajesh Gopal, Naveen Kumar | | Cureus. 2023; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
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] | | | 3 |
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] | | | 4 |
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] | | | 5 |
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] | | | 6 |
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] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 6751 | | | Printed | 172 | | | Emailed | 0 | | | PDF Downloaded | 511 | | | Comments | [Add] | | | Cited by others | 6 | | |
|
|
