Evaluation of the effects of two novel irrigants on intraradicular dentine erosion, debris and smear layer removal.
10.5395/rde.2015.40.3.216
- Author:
Melahat GORDUYSUS
1
;
Selen KUCUKKAYA
;
Nursel Pekel BAYRAMGIL
;
Mehmet Omer GORDUYSUS
Author Information
1. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey. selenkkkaya@yahoo.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Acrylic acid;
Calcium hypochlorite;
Dentin;
Maleic acid
- MeSH:
Calcium;
Dental Pulp Cavity;
Dentin*;
Edetic Acid;
Hypochlorous Acid;
Smear Layer*;
Sodium Hypochlorite;
Spectrum Analysis;
Tooth
- From:Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics
2015;40(3):216-222
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of copolymer of acrylic acid and maleic acid (Poly[AA-co-MA]) and calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) on root canal dentin using scanning electron microscope (SEM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four single-rooted teeth were instrumented and the apical and coronal thirds of each root were removed, leaving the 5 mm middle thirds, which were then separated into two pieces longitudinally. The specimens were randomly divided into six groups and subjected to each irrigant for 5 min as follows: G1, Ca(OCl)2; G2, Poly(AA-co-MA); G3, Ca(OCl)2 + Poly(AA-co-MA); G4, sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); G5, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA); G6, NaOCl+EDTA. The specimens were prepared for SEM evaluation. Smear layer, debris and erosion scores were recorded by two blinded examiners. One image from G3 was analyzed with energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) on suspicion of precipitate formation. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests. RESULTS: G1 and G4 showed the presence of debris and smear layer and they were statistically different from G2, G3, G5 and G6 where debris and smear layer were totally removed (p < 0.05). In G1 and G4, erosion evaluation could not be done because of debris and smear layer. G2, G3 and G5 showed no erosion, and there was no significant difference between them. G6 showed severe erosion and was statistically different from G2, G3 and G5 (p < 0.05). EDS microanalysis showed the presence of Na, P, and Ca elements on the surface. CONCLUSIONS: Poly(AA-co-MA) is effective in removing the smear layer and debris without causing erosion either alone or with Ca(OCl)2.
