Introduction antimicrobial properties (13,14). In contrast to EDTA, Etridonic

Introduction

Various
former studies have shown that the dentin wall was covered with smear layer
after mechanical shaping of the root canals with instrument (1,2). Disregarding
of the controversy over retaining the smear layer it has been recognized that the
smear layer itself may be infected and may protect the bacteria within the
dentinal tubules (3). Smear layer not only contains organic components but also
have inorganic component in the form of dentin chips etc (1). The penetration
of intracanal disinfectants (4) and sealers into dentinal tubules were
prevented by smear layer, which affects the final seal of the root canal
filling (5, 6, 7).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Irrigants
are paramount for complete debridement of the root canals with mechanical procedures
(3). There is no single potent solution is appropriate for removing both
organic and inorganic parts of the smear layer. To eliminate this smear layer mix
of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and strong chelating agent such as EDTA (Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) is
recommended (8). Crumpton et al. proposed
that complete evacuation of smear layer can be achieved by 17% EDTA for 1min
followed by 5.25% NaOCl (9,12). Till now there is no single solution which can
disinfect the root canal system as well as remove the smear layer. On the other
hand the application of strong chelating agent like EDTA for more than minute and
1ml of volume has been reported to be associated with dentinal erosion (10,11).

SmearClear
(Sybron Endo, Orange, CA) is a product introduced for eliminating the smear
layer. It contains 17% EDTA solution in conjunction with a cationic (Cetrimide)
and an anionic surfactant. SmearOFF (Vista Detal Products) is Proprietary EDTA
and Chlrohexidine mix. It is prepared with combination of wetting agents and
surface modifiers for best outcomes. These solutions are used only as final
rinse.

Etridonic acid which is soft chelating agent appears
to have a nominal effect on dentine walls and still cut down smear layer. Lottanti et al.
showed that Etridonic acid (HEBP) can be used in combination
with NaOCl without affecting its proteolytic or antimicrobial properties (13,14). In contrast to EDTA, Etridonic
acid is a weak decalcifying agent and hence cannot be used as a mere final
rinse there for it is suggested that HEBP to be mixed with NaOCl to be used as
more complete root canal irrigation solution.

 

Chloroquick
(innovationsendo, India) is a combination of NaOCl and HEBP. Chloroquick High
contains 18% HEBP and 5.25% NaOCl while Chloroquick Low contains 9% HEBP and 3%
NaOCl both be mixed with surfactant tween 80 for complete root canal irrigation
solution. There for this study aims to compare the efficacy of continuous soft
chelating irrigation protocol with Chloroquick solutions to conventional
irrigation protocol on smear layer removal in coronal, middle, and apical
thirds of the instrumented root canals.

 

 

Materials
and methods

Sixty
freshly extracted human premolar teeth with single and straight root canal were
preferred and stored in distal water. Average root length of 12 mm were retained
by decoronating the teeth and then divided into 5 groups (n = 12) randomly. Working length was determined with
#10 K-files and deduction of 1mm was done from recorded root length.

Conventional
irrigation protocol was pursued for three groups. After using each file and
before proceeding to the next canals were irrigated with 2 ml of 5.25% NaOCl.
After instrumentation, all teeth underwent final irrigation as follows:-

Group A(control, EDTA) –
1ml of 17% EDTA for 1 minute followed by 3 ml of 5.25% NaOCl.

Group B (Smear Clear)–
1 ml of Smear clear (Sybron Endo, Orange, CA) for 1 minute followed by 3 ml of
5.25% NaOCl.

Group C (Smear OFF) –
1 ml of Smear OFF (Vista dental,) for 1 minute followed by 3 ml of 5.25% NaOCl.

Continuous
soft chelating irrigation protocol was followed for 2 Groups. Group D- Chloroquick
Low (innovationsendo) and Group E – Chloroquick High  (innovationsendo). After use of each file
canal was irrigated with 2 ml of respective Chloroquick solution. After
instrumentation, all teeth underwent final irrigation as follows:-

Group D (Chloroquick Low)
– 1 ml of Chloroquick Low solution (9%HEBP + 3%NaOCl)  for 1 minute and final rinse with 3 ml same
solution.

Group E (Chloroquck High)
– 1 ml of Chloroquick High solution (18%HEBP + 5.25%NaOCl) for 1 minute and
final rinse with 3 ml of same solution.

In-between solutions, 5 ml of distilled water was
used for rinsing canal walls and solutions were introduced with the help of a
30-G side vented needle (innovationsendo), which penetrated within 1 to 2 mm
from the working length. In the end 5ml of distilled water were used to rinse
root canal walls which were dried with paper points.

In the end of entire procedure, two longitudinal
groves were prepared with the help of diamond disc without cutting into the
canal. Grooves were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of each root.
Chisel was used for splitting the teeth. Then the specimens were mounted on the
metallic stubs and investigated under a scanning electron microscope (FEI
Quanta 200 FE-SEM MK2, Netherlands). Images were obtained at 2000× magnifications
at coronal (9 mm to apex), middle (6 mm to apex), and apical (3 mm to apex)
third of each specimen.

Scoring criteria was given by Torabinejad M, Khademi
AA et al. where scores were given as follow score 1 = no smear layer; all tubules were clean and open and smear
layer was absent on the surface of the canals; score 2 = moderate smear layer; smear layer was not present on the
surface of the canal, but debris were present in tubules; score 3 = heavy smear layer; the debris were observed in tubules and
smear layer enclosed the dentin wall surfaces.

An endodntist who was unaware of groups and coding
evaluated and scored all the images to exclude observer bias. Repeated
evaluation was done to ensure intra-examiner consistency.

 

 

 

RESULTS

Descriptive
statistics were expressed as numbers for each group. The efficacy of various
agents for smear layer removal was assessed by comparison of groups using
Kruskal Wallis ANOVA and Mann- Whitney U test. In the above tests, p value less
than or equal to 0.05 (p?0.05) was taken to be statistically significant. All
analyses were performed using SPSS software version 17.

The results for smear
layer scores in each group at coronal, middle and apical are conferred in Table
no 1, 2 and 3. The examination of the surface of root canal walls at coronal
third groups showed less or no smear layer (Fig. 1) and there was no statistically significant
difference (p_0.643).
Most
samples at middle thirds shows no smear layer or minimal smear layer present
(Fig. 2) and there was no
statistically significant difference at middle layer of root canals (p_0.615). Chloroquick High group showed better smear layer removal at the apical thirds (Fig.
3). Chloroquick High shows statistically significantly better
(p_0.029) as compared to the other groups. Mann-Whitney U test shows that
Chloroquick High is able to remove better smear layer compared to Chloroquick
Low (p_0.028). Choloroquick Low has similar chelating
ability as compared to other solution there is no statically significant
difference at apical third.

 

DISCUSSION

This examination provides the insightful
understanding of smear layer abolition proceeding and capability of
conventional irrigation protocol and continuous soft chelating irrigation
protocol. Satisfactory irrigation, disinfection, and obturation are main
principle of shaping. Accumulation of smear layer is noticed while shaping of canals
which need to abolish with the help of irrigating solution. Whole activity needed
from an irrigant to reduce smear layer from dentin wall cannot be obtain by any
sole irrigating solution. Therefore, combined application of multiple irrigating
solutions is obligatory for optimal abolition of smear layer (5).Whereas Chloroquick
solution is mix of HEBP (a soft chelating agent) and NaOCl which can disinfect
root canal as well as reduces smear layer. Highlight of such combination of
NaOCl and Etridonic acid is that the NaOCl doesn’t surrender its biological,
antibacterial and tissue dissolving properties (13, 14), whereas the reduction
and elimination of the inorganic element is done with help of HEBP (11, 12).

Outcome of this current research demonstrate eradication
of smear layer was more decisive in middle and coronal third in comparison to
apical third. These results are in accordance with study done by Abbott PV, Heijkoop PS et al. and numerous studies, which have proved in past that
an effective cleaning action in the middle and coronal third of the root canals
even with numerous irrigation solutions, different volume, and time (15, 16).
In coronal and middle third areas where a larger canal diameter allows better
flow of solution and more time to be in contact with dentine wall which allows the
solution to remove smear layer comprehensively. (3,16).

            Role
of surfactant has been discussed and reviewed by numerous authors, in current
study SmearClear, SmearOFF and Chloroquick contains surfactant. Abou-Rass and
Patonai confirmed that reduction of surface tension of endodontic solutions
improved their flow into slender and narrow root canals (17). Therefore, an
improved penetration into apical narrow part of canals can be seen with
addition of surfactants to irrigation solution. In present study, SmearClear
and SmearOFF despite having additional surfactant doesn’t show the significant
removal of smear layer in apical third when compared to control group of 17%
EDTA, which does not have any addition surfactant. This result is in accordance
with the observations of Lui et al. (18) and also, other studies have shown
that calcium chelating ability of solution is not improved by reducing the surface
tension of the solution.

            Present
study results display that the continuous soft
chelating irrigation shows the significantly better removal of smear layer than
conventional irrigation protocol at apical third level when 18% HEBP was used
in combination with 5.25% NaOCl (Chloroquick High). Where 9% HEBP in
combination with 3% NaOCl (Chloroquick Low) did not show any significance
difference compared to conventional irrigation protocol groups. These results can
be attributed to chelating agent being more time in canal and also chelating
procedure is seen while instrumentation, unlike conventional irrigation
protocol where removal of smear layer is done only once instrumentation is
completed (19). Paque et al. demonstrated that the accumulation of hard tissue
debris in root canals when irrigated with amalgamation of  NaOCl and HEBP was significantly less than irrigation
was performed with 2.5% NaOCl alone (20).Another advantage of this combination
is that it has better tissue dissolution capacity by keeping the hypochlorite-
hypochlorous acid equilibrium towards hypochlorite (21). This combination is
affective on inorganic as well as organic part of smear layer at same time.

            Result
of this study is in contrast to the recently published study by Aby
Kuruvilla et al. where 7%malic acid was
more effective in removing smear layer as compared to 17% EDTA and 18%
etidronic acid (22). This observation may be seen because 18% etidronic acid which
is soft chelating agent was merely used in a final rinse irrigation protocol
and not combined with sodium hypochlorite.

 There are
very few studies available on use of the continuous soft chelating agent for
smear layer removal. Future study should be aimed towards effect of both this
protocol on root canal walls. In present study, continuous soft chelating
irrigation protocol shows promising results.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitation of this in-vitro study both
the protocols conventional as well as continuous soft chelating irrigation
protocols were able to remove smear layer at coronal and middle third of the
root canals but at apical third only continues soft chelating irrigation
protocol performed with Chloroquick High shows better removal of smear.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reference

 

1. McComb D, Smith DC. A
preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of rootcanals after endodontic
procedures. J Endod 1975;1:238–42.

2. Mader CL, Baumgartner JC,
Peters DD. Scanning electron microscopic investigationof the smeared layer on
root canal walls. J Endod 1984;10:477– 83.

3. Torabinejad M, Handysides R,
Khademi AA, Bakland LK. Clinical implications of thesmear layer in endodontics:
a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod 2002;94:658–66.

4. Örstavik D, Haapasalo M.
Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and dressingsof experimentally infected
dentinal tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990;6:142–9.

5. White RR, Goldman M, Lin PS.
The influence of the smeared layer upon dentinaltubule penetration by plastic
filling materials. J Endod 1984;10:558–62.

6. Economides N, Liolios E,
Kolokuris I, Beltes P. Long-term evaluation of the influenceof smear layer
removal on the sealing ability of different sealers. J Endod1999;25:123–5.

7. Shahravan A, Haghdoost AA, Adl
A, Rahimi H, Shadifar F. Effect of smear layer onsealing ability of canal
obturation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod2007;33:96 –105.

8. Yamada R, Aramas A, Goldman M,
Lin PS. A scanning electron microscope comparisonof a high volume final flush
with several irrigating solutions. Part 3. J Endod1983;9:137– 42.

9. Calt S, Serper A.
Time-dependent effects of EDTA on dentin structures. J Endod2002;28:17–9.

10. Torabinejad M, Cho Y, Khademi
AA, Bakland LK, Shabahang S. The effect of variousconcentrations of sodium
hypochlorite on the ability of MTAD to remove the smearlayer. J Endod
2003;29:233–9.

11. Tay FR, Gutmann JL, Pashley
DH. Microporous, demineralized collagen matrices inintact radicular dentin
created by commonly used calcium-depleting endodonticirrigants. J Endod
2007;33:1086 –90.

12. Crumpton BJ, Goodell GG,
McClanahan SB. Effects on smear layer and debris removalwith varying volumes of
17% REDTA after rotary instrumentation. J Endod2005;31:536–8.

13. Girard S, Paque F, Badertscher M, Sener B,
Zehnder M (2005) Assessment of a gel-type chelating preparation containing
1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1 bisphosphonate. International Endodontic Journal 38,
810–16.

14. Zehnder M, Schmidlin P, Sener
B, Waltimo T (2005) Chelationin root canal therapy reconsidered. Journal of
Endodontics31, 817–20.

15.Abbott PV, Heijkoop PS,
Cardaci SC, Hume WR, Heithersay GS. An SEM study of theeffects of different
irrigation sequences and ultrasonics. Int Endod J 1991;24:308 –16.

16. Teixeira CS, Felippe MC,
Felippe WT. The effects of application time of EDTA andNaOCl on intracanal
smear layer removal: an SEM analysis. Int Endod J 2005;38:285–90.

17. Abou-Rass M, Patonai FJ Jr. The effects of
decreasing surface tension on the flow of irrigating solutions in narrow root
canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982;53:524–6.

18.
Lui JN, Kuah HG, Chen NN. Effect of EDTA with and without surfactants or
ultrasonics on removal of smear layer. J Endod 2007;33:472–5.

 

19. Lottanti S, Gautschi H, Sener B, Zehnder M.
Effects of ethylenediaminetetraacetic, etidronic and peracetic acid irrigation
on human root dentine and the smear layer. Int Endod J 2009;42:335–43.

20. Paque F, Rechenberg DK, Zehnder M. Reduction of
hard-tissue debris accumulation during rotary root canal instrumentation by
etidronic acid in a sodium hypochlorite irrigant. J Endod 2012;38:692–5. .

21.Christensen CE, McNeal SF, Eleazer P. Effect of
lowering the pH of sodium hypochlorite on dissolving tissue invitro. Journal of
Endodontics 2008; 34, 449–52.

22. Aby Kuruvilla, Bharath Makonahalli
Jaganath, Sahadev Chickmagaravalli Krishnegowda,Praveen Kumar Makonahalli
Ramachandra, Dexton Antony Johns, Aby Abraham.A comparative evaluation of smear
layer removal by using edta, etidronic acid, and maleic acid as root canal
irrigants: An in vitro scanning electron microscopic study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry 2015; 18,247-3.

Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Qian W, Gao
Y. Irrigation in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am. 2010;54:291–312. PubMed

11. Lottanti S, Gautschi H, Sener
B, Zehnder M. Effects of ethylenediaminetetraacetic,

etidronic and peracetic acid
irrigation on human root dentine and the smear layer.

Int Endod J 2009;42:335–43.

12. Paque F, Rechenberg DK,
Zehnder M. Reduction of hard-tissue debris accumulation

during rotary root canal
instrumentation by etidronic acid in a sodium hypochlorite

irrigant. J Endod 2012;38:692–5.

13. Arias-Moliz MT,
Ordinola-Zapata R, Baca P, et al. Antimicrobial activity of a

sodium hypochlorite/etidronic
acid irrigant solution. J Endod 2014;40:

1999–2002.

14. Tartari T, Guimar~aes BM,
Amoras LS, et al. Etidronate causes minimal changes in the

ability of sodium hypochlorite to
dissolve organic matter. Int Endod J 2015;48:

399–404.