The use of auxiliary devices during irrigation to increase the cleaning ability of a chelating agent.
10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.105
- Author:
Marina Carvalho PRADO
1
;
Fernanda LEAL
;
Renata Antoun SIMÃO
;
Heloisa GUSMAN
;
Maíra DO PRADO
Author Information
1. PROCLIN Department, School of Dentistry, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. marinaprado@dentistas.com.br
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Endodontics;
Root canal irrigants;
Root canal therapy;
Scanning electron microscopy;
Smear layer;
Ultrasonics
- MeSH:
Endodontics;
Humans;
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning;
Root Canal Irrigants;
Root Canal Therapy;
Smear Layer;
Sodium Hypochlorite;
Tooth;
Ultrasonics
- From:Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics
2017;42(2):105-110
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the cleaning ability of ultrasonically activated irrigation (UAI) and a novel activation system with reciprocating motion (EC, EasyClean, Easy Equipamentos Odontológicos) when used with a relatively new chelating agent (QMix, Dentsply). In addition, the effect of QMix solution when used for a shorter (1 minute) and a longer application time (3 minutes) was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty permanent human teeth were prepared with K3 rotary system and 6% sodium hypochlorite. Samples were randomly assigned to five groups (n = 10) according to the final irrigation protocol: G1, negative control (distilled water); G2, positive control (QMix 1 minute); G3, QMix 1 minute/UAI; G4, QMix 1 minute/EC; G5, QMix 3 minutes. Subsequently the teeth were prepared and three photomicrographs were obtained in each root third of root walls, by scanning electron microscopy. Two blinded and pre-calibrated examiners evaluated the images using a four-category scoring system. Data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: There were differences among groups (p < 0.05). UAI showed better cleaning ability than EC (p < 0.05). There were improvements when QMix was used with auxiliary devices in comparison with conventional irrigation (p < 0.05). Conventional irrigation for 3 minutes presented significantly better results than its use for 1 minute (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: QMix should be used for 1 minute when it is used with UAI, since this final irrigation protocol showed the best performance and also allowed clinical optimization of this procedure.
