Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 2983
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 431-435

The effect of chitosan nanoparticle, citric acid, and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid on dentin smear layer using two different irrigation needles: A scanning electron microscope study

1 Ministry Of Health, Baghdad, Republic of Iraq
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, Iraq
3 Department of Anesthesia, College of Medical Technology, University of Al- Farahidi, Baghdad, Iraq

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Esraa Raad Hussein
Ministry Of Health, Baghdad
Republic of Iraq
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_178_22

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of chitosan (CS) nanoparticles (CNPs), citric acid (CA), and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in removing the smear layer using two different irrigation needles. Materials and Methods: Palatal roots of 70 maxillary first molars were decoronated, instrumented, and divided into four experimental groups (n = 20) and one control group (n = 10). The groups received a final rinse of 0.5% CNPs, 10% CA, 17% EDTA, and distilled water for 3 min. Every group was subdivided into two subsections: IrriFlex® endodontic or ProRinse® irrigation needles. Specimens were divided lengthwise and viewed under a scanning electron microscope for evaluation. Statistical Analysis Used: Nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U-tests were used to compare the results (P < 0.05). Results: CNPs were as efficient as CA and EDTA as a chelating agent. However, significantly more efficient apically. At all three levels, there was no significant difference between A1 and A2. At the coronal and middle levels, there was a significant difference between B1 and B2, as well as apically between C1 and C2. Conclusions: CNPs remove the smear layer with the same efficiency as other irrigants utilized in this study at coronal and middle levels and more efficiently at the apical levels. IrriFlex® was more effective than ProRinse® in removing the smear layer when used with EDTA and CA, while there was no difference when used with CNPs.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded8    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal