Loiacono R, Anaise CA, Lago MS, Pinasco LB, Gualtieri A, Rodríguez PA

Language: Spanish
References: 33
Page: 243-252
PDF size: 458.09 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The importance of removing the smear layer from dentinal tubules is that they can host many microorganisms. Cleaning these spaces is achieved with the use of an auxiliary and chemical agents during irrigation. It has been reported that phosphoric acid removes the smear layer lodged inside the tubules and on the walls of the root canal. However, the high concentrations (between 5% and 40%) could be harmful to the periradicular tissues. This can be complemented using activation systems, such as passive ultrasonic irrigation. Objective: This study aimed to use different concentrations of phosphoric acid as an adjuvant and to compare the degree of cleaning generated by each concentration on the dentin wall of the root canal. The cleaning changes related to the ultrasonic activation of the adjuvant were also analyzed. Material and methods: 90 human lower premolars were used, which were standardized to a length of 18 mm. The samples were instrumented with the ProTaper Next system (Dentsply, Maillefer, Switzerland) up to the X3 instrument (0.30 mm tip). Irrigation was performed with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), and an adjuvant as a final solution: G1 (3% phosphoric acid [AF] without activation), G2 (3% AF with activation), G3 (4% AF without activation), G4 (4% AF with activation) and G5 (17% EDTA). The specimens were observed at scanning electron microscope (SEM). Results: The degree of cleaning generated in the different groups would not depend on the adjuvant activation, but would increase with concentration. The degree of cleaning was reduced from coronal to apical, although the differences obtained were not significant. Conclusion: The use of phosphoric acid as an adjuvant at 4% concentration, compared to 3%, demonstrated a greater degree of cleaning of the dentin walls of the root canal system, not showing statistically significant improvements with ultrasonic activation.

REFERENCES

1. Cohen S, Liewehr F. Procedimientos diagnósticos. En: Hargreaves KM, Berman LH, editores. Cohen. Vías de la pulpa. 11a edición. Elsevier, Madrid: España; 2016. pp. 3-30.

2. Sjogren U, Figdor D, Persson S, Sundqvist G. Influence of infection at the time of root filling on the outcome of endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontics. Int Endod J. 1997; 30: 297-306.

3. Mohammadi Z, Shalavi S, Giardino L, Palazzi F, Asgary S. Impact of ultrasonic activation on the effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite: a review. Iran Endod J. 2015; 10: 216-220.

4. Estrela C, Silva JA, de Alencar AH, Leles CR, Decurcio DA. Efficacy of sodium hypochlorite and chlorexidine against Enterococcus Faecalis - A systematic review. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008; 16: 364-368.

5. Pasqualini D, Cuffini AM, Scotti N et al. Comparative evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of a 5% sodium hypochlorite subsonic-activated solution. J Endod. 2010; 36: 1358-1360.

6. Wu MK, de Schwartz FB, van der Sluis LW, Wesselink PR. The quality of root fillings remaining in mandibular incisors after root-end cavity preparation. Int Endod J. 2001; 34: 613-619.

7. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod. 2004; 30: 559-567.

8. Takeda FH, Harashima T, Kimura Y, Matsumoto K. A comparative study of the removal of smear layer by three endodontic irrigants and two types of laser. Int Endod J. 1999; 32: 32-39.

9. Prado M, Silva EJ, Duque TM et al. Antimicrobial and cytotoxic effects of phosphoric acid solution compared to the other root canal irrigants. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015; 23: 158-163.

10. Torabinejad M, Handysides R, Khademi AA, Bakland LK. Clinical implications of the smear layer in endodontics: a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002; 94: 658-666.

11. Czonstkowsky M, Wilson EG, Holstein FA. The smear layer in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am. 1990; 34: 13-25.

12. Sena NT, Gomes BP, Vianna ME et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine against selected single-species biofilms. Int Endod J. 2006; 39: 878-885.

13. Krishnamurthy S, Sudhakaran S. Evaluation and prevention of the precipitate formed on interaction between sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine. J Endod. 2010; 36: 1154-1157.

14. Gomes BP, Ferraz CC, Vianna ME, Berber VB, Teixeira FB, Souza-Filho FJ. In vitro antimicrobial activity of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate in the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J. 2001; 34: 424-428.

15. Baumgartner JC, Mader CL. A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of four root canal irrigation regimens. J Endod. 1987; 13: 147-157.

16. Yamada RS, Armas A, Goldman M, Lin PS. A scanning electron microscopic comparison of a highvolume final flush with several irrigation solutions: part 3. J Endod. 1983; 9: 137-142.

17. Aktener BO, Bilkay U. Smear layer removal with different concentrations of EDTA-ethylenediamine mixtures. J Endod. 1993; 19: 228-231.

18. Sen BE, Wesselink PR, Turkun M. The smear layer: a phenomenon in root canal therapy. Int Endod J. 1995; 28: 141-148.

19. Prado M, Gusman H, Gomes B, Simao RA. Scanning electron microscopic investigation of the effectiveness of phosphoric acid in smear layer removal when compared with EDTA and citric acid. J Endod. 2011; 37: 255-258.

20. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod. 2006; 32: 389-398.

21. Perez-Heredia M, Ferrer-Luque CM, González-Rodríguez MP, Martín-Peinado FJ, González-López S. Decalcifying effect of 15% EDTA, 15% citric acid, 5% phosphoric acid and 2.5% sodium hypochlorite on root canal dentine. Int Endod J. 2008; 41: 418-423.

22. Ayad MF. Effects of rotatory instrumentation and different etchants on removal of smear layer on human dentin. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85: 67-72.

23. Albino Souza M, Tretin Motter F, Pitton Fontana T, Barbosa Ribeiro M, Miyagaki DC, Cecchin D. Influence of ultrasonic activation in association with different final irrigants on intracanal smear layer removal. Braz J Oral Sci. 2016; 15: 16-20.

24. Khalighinejad N, Hasheminia M, Feizinafar M. The efficacy of 5% maleic acid, 6% phosphoric acid and 17% EDTA in smear layer removal. A scanning electron microscopic investigation. Stomatoloski Glasnik Srbije. 2013; 60: 191-199.

25. Prado M, Simao RA, Gomes BP. Effect of different irrigation protocols on resin sealer bond strength to dentin. J Endod. 2013; 39: 689-692.

26. Pérez-Heredia M, Ferrer-Luque CM, González-Rodríguez MP. The effectiveness of different acid irrigant solutions in root canal cleaning after hand and rotary instrumentation. J Endod. 2006; 32: 993-997.

27. Khalap ND, Kokate S, Hedge V. Ultrasonic versus sonic activation of the final irrigant in root canals instrumented with rotary/reciprocating files: An in vitro scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Conserv Dent. 2016; 19: 368-372.

28. Plotino G, Cortese T, Grande NM et al. New technologies to improve root canal disinfection. Braz Dent J. 2016; 27: 3-8.

29. Rome WJ, Doran JE, Walker WA 3rd. The effectiveness of Gly-Oxide and sodium hypochlorite in preventing smear layer formation. J Endod. 1985; 11: 281-288.

30. Garberoglio R, Becce C. Smear layer removal by root canal irrigants. A comparative scanning microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994; 78: 359-367.

31. Prado M, Simao RA, Gomes BP. A microleakage study of gutta-percha/AH plus and Resilon/Real self-etch systems after different irrigation protocols. J Appl Oral Sci. 2014; 22: 174-179.

32. Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. Demineralization of resected root-ends with methylene blue dye. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1997; 84: 74-78.

33. Scelza MF, Piero V, Scelza P, Pereira M. Effect of three different time periods of irrigation with EDTA-T, EDTA, and citric acid on smear layer removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 98: 499-503.