Effects of Final Irrigation with SmearOFF on the Surface of Dentin Using Surface Analytical Methods

Biological and Chemical Properties of 2-in-1 Calcium-chelating and Antibacterial Root Canal Irrigants

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the capacity of canal wall smear layer removal, precipitation caused by irrigant interaction, antibacterial activity and cytotoxicity of three 2-in-1 root canal irrigating solutions METHODS: Forty single-rooted teeth were mechanically instrumented and irrigated with QMix, SmearOFF, Irritrol or 0.9% saline. Each tooth was evaluated for smear layer removal using scanning electron microscopy. Precipitation after interaction of the irrigating solutions with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) was evaluated with ¹H nuclear magnetic resonance and mass spectroscopy. Confocal laser scanning microscopy was used to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of the irrigants against Enterococcus faecalis biofilms. Neutral red and clonogenic assays were performed on Chinese hamster V79 cells to evaluate the short-term and long-term cytotoxicity of the irrigants RESULTS: There was no significant difference between QMix and SmearOFF in eliminating smear layers from the coronal-third and middle-third of the canal spaces. In the apical-third, SmearOFF removed smear layers effectively. Irritrol incompletely removed smear layers from all the canal-thirds. When mixed with NaOCl, precipitation was evident only with Irritrol. QMix demonstrated a higher E. faecalis cell death percentage and a smaller biovolume. SmearOFF exhibited a larger decrease in biovolume compared with Irritrol, although Irritrol had a higher death percentage. Irritrol was more cytotoxic than the other irrigants on a short-term interval. In terms of long-term cytotoxicity, both Irritrol and QMix were cytotoxic CONCLUSION: QMix and SmearOFF performed better in smear layer removal and antimicrobial activity. QMix and Irritrol were cytotoxic when compared to SmearOFF. Irritrol was associated with precipitation after interacting with NaOCl.

The Interaction of Two Widely Used Endodontic Irrigants, Chlorhexidine and Sodium Hypochlorite, and Its Impact on the Disinfection Protocol during Root Canal Treatment

In recent years, sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine digluconate have been the gold standard of irrigation solutions utilized within the disinfection protocol during root canal treatments. Nowadays, it is known that, during chemical disinfection of the root canal, consecutive application of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine digluconate leads to the formation of an orange-brown precipitate. This precipitate is described as being chemically similar to para-chloroaniline, which is suspected to have cytotoxic and carcinogenic effects. Concerns also exist regarding its influence on the leakage of root canal fillings, coronal restorations, and tooth discoloration. The purpose of this article is to review the literature on the interaction of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine digluconate on the tooth and its surrounding tissues, and to discuss the effect of the precipitate formed during root canal treatment. We further address options to avoid the formation of the precipitate and describe alternative irrigation solutions that should not interact with sodium hypochlorite or chlorhexidine digluconate.

Quantitative analysis of SmearOFF and different irrigation activation techniques on removal of smear layer: A scanning electron microscope study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of SmearOFF solution on smear layer removal by using different irrigation activation techniques. One hundred and twenty mandibular premolars were decoronated, and instrumented with Reciproc up to size 50. Then, the specimens were divided into 6 groups according to the final irrigation activation technique: Group 1: SmearOFF + Conventional syringe irrigation (CSI); Group 2: SmearOFF + Sonic activation (SA); Group 3: SmearOFF + Passive ultrasonic activation (PUA); Group 4:17% EDTA + CSI; Group 5:17% EDTA + SA, and Group 6:17% EDTA + PUA. Teeth were split longitudinally, and specimens were observed under scanning electron microscope. Images were taken from the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the teeth with 1,000× magnification and analyzed using ImageJ program to calculate total open dentinal tubule areas. Three-way ANOVA test was applied to reveal any significant differences among solutions, activation techniques and root thirds. There was no statistically significant difference among the groups in terms of irrigation solutions (p > .05). There was a statistically significant difference between PUA and CSI groups (p < .05). However, no significant difference was observed between PUA and SA, or between SA and CSI (p > .05). All experimental procedures were most effective in the middle region of the root, followed by cervical and apical thirds (p < .05). PUA showed higher efficacy in smear layer removal compared with CSI. SmearOFF and 17% EDTA showed similar results. The best results in removing smear layer were obtained in the middle region of the root.