Effectiveness of Smear Layer Removal by Different EDTA Formulations Prepared at the Faculty of Dentistry, CMU
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different irrigating solutions on smear layer removal on root canal surfaces. The irrigating solutions were 17% disodium EDTA, 17% tetrasodium EDTA and Ultradent®. The first two formulations were produced in the Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University. Ultradent® was imported from the USA. The crowns of 16 permanent premolar teeth with single roots were cut off. The root canals were then enlarged with a standardized technique until K-file No.50 could reach the working length, and irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl during cleaning and shaping. The teeth were divided into three experimental groups (n=5) and one positive control (n=1). The teeth in the experimental groups received a rinse of each EDTA formulation for one minute and a final rinse of 5.25% NaOCl. The positive control was not rinsed with EDTA, but it did receive a final rinse of 5.25% NaOCl. All of the teeth were then split longitudinally and prepared for scanning electron microscopy imaging. Digital images (2000x) of the coronal, middle and apical sections were graded for the presence of smear layer. The data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test andthe Mann-Whitney U test. The root canal surfaces of the control were completely covered with smear layers. The presence of smear layers, on the surfaces rinsed by 17% disodium EDTA and 17% tetrasodium EDTA were significantly less than on those rinsed by Ultradent® (p<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the first two formulations (p>0.05).
1. McComb D, Smith D. A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod 1975; 1: 238- 242.
2. Czonstkowsky M, Wilson EG, Holstein FA. The smear layer in endodontics. DentClin N Am 1990; 34: 13-25.
3. Mader C, Baumgartner J, Peters D. Scanning electron microscopic investigation of the smeared layer on root canal walls. J Endod 1984; 10: 477-483.
4. Drake D, Wiemann A, Rivera E, Walton R. Bacterial retention in canal walls in vitro: effect of smear layer. J Endod 1994; 20: 78-82.
5. Oksan T, Aktener B, Sen B, Tezel H. The penetration of root canal sealers into dentinal tubules. A scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 1993; 26: 301-305.
6. Yoshida T, Shibata T, Shinohara T, Gomyo S, Sekine I. Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of EDTA solution as an endodontic irrigant. J Endod 1995; 21: 592-593.
7. Economides N, Liolios E, KolokurisI,Beltes P. Long-term evaluation of the influence of smear layer removal on the sealing ability of different sealers. J Endod 1999; 25: 123-125.
8. White R, Goldman M, Lin P. The influence of the smeared layer upon dentinal tubule penetration by plastic filling materials. J Endod 1984; 10: 558-562.
9. Gettleman BH, Messer HH, ElDeeb ME. Adhesion of sealer cements to dentine with and without the smear layer. J Endod 1991; 17: 15-20.
10. Torabinejad M, Al Khademi A, Babagoli J et al. A new solution for the removal of the smear layer. J Endod 2003; 29: 170-175.
11. Hülsmann M, Heckendorff M, Lennon A. Chelating agents in root canal treatment:mode of action and indications for their use. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 810-830.
12. Von der Fehr F, Nygaard?stby B. Effect of EDTAC and sulfuric acid on root canal dentine. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1963; 16: 199-205.
13. Kite P, Eastwood K, Sugden S, Percival SL. Use of in vivo-generated biofilms from hemodialysis catheters to test the efficacy of a novel antimicrobial catheter lock for biofilm eradication in vitro. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42: 3073-3076.
14. Percival SL, Kite P, Eastwood K, Murga R, Carr J, Arduino MJ, Donlan R. Tetrasodium EDTA as a novel central venous catheler lock solution against biofilm. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2005; 26: 515-519.
15. Harrision JJ, Turner RJ, Ceri H. A subpopulation of Candida albicans and Candida tropicalis biofilm cells are highly tolerant to chelating agents. FEMS Microbiol 2007; 272: 172-181.
16. Goldman M, Goldman L, Cavaleri R,Bogis J, Lin PS. The efficacy of several endodontic irrigating solutions: a scanning electron microscopic study. Part 2. J Endod 1982; 8: 487- 492.
17. Baumgartner JC and Mader C. A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of four root canal irrigation regimens. J Endod 1987; 13: 147-157.
18. Yamada R, Armas A, Goldman M, Lin P. A scanning electron microscopic comparison of a high-volume final flush with several irrigation solutions. Part III. J Endod 1983; 9: 137-142.
19. Blomlöf J, Blomlöf L, Lindskog S. Effect of different concentrations of EDTA on smear removal and collagen exposure in periodontitis-affected root surfaces. J Clin Periodontol 1997; 24: 534-537.
20. Perez V, Cardenas M, Planells U. The possible role of pH changes during EDTA demineralization of teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1989; 68: 220-222.
21. Serper A, Çalt S. The demineralizing effects of EDTA at different concentrations and pH. J Endod 2002; 28: 501-502.
22. Parmar G, Chhatariya A. Demineralising effect of EDTA at different concentration and pH-A spectrophotometer study. Endodontology 2004; 16: 54-57.
23. Calt S, Serper A. Time-dependent effects of EDTA on dentin structures. J Endod 2002; 28: 17-19.
24. Saito K, Webb TD, Imamura GM, Goodell GG. Effect of shortened irrigation time with 17% ethylene diaminetetre-acetic acid on smear layer removal after rotary canal instrumentation. J Endod 2008; 34: 1011-1014.
25. Crumpton BJ, Goodell GG, McClanahan SB. Effects on smear layer and debris removal with varying volumes of 17% REDTA after rotary instrumentation. J Endod 2005; 31: 536-538.
26. Scelza MF, Antoniazzi JH, Scelza P. Efficacy of final irrigation--a scanning electron microscopic evaluation. J Endod 2000; 26: 355-358.
27. Ballal NV, Kandian S, Mala K, Bhat KS, Acharya S. Comparison of the efficacy of maleicacid and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid in smear layer removal from instrumented human root canal: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2009; 35:1573- 1576.
28. Saito K, Webb TD, Imamura GM, Goodell GG. Effect of shortenedirrigationtimes with 17% ethylene diaminete tra-acetic acid on smear layer removal after rotary canal instrumentation. J Endod 2008; 34:1011-1014.
29. Pashley D, Okabe A, Parham P. The relationship between dentin microhardness and tubule density. Endod Dent Traumatol 1985; 1: 176- 179.
30. Mjör I, Smith M, Ferrari M, Mannocci F. The structure of dentine in the apical region of human teeth. Int Endod J 2001; 34: 346-353.
31. de Gregorio C, Estevez R, Cisneros R, Heilborn C, Cohenca N. Effect of EDTA, sonic, and ultrasonic activation on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into simulated lateral canals: an in vitrostudy. J Endod 2009; 35: 891-895.
32. Peters OA, Barbakow F. Effects of irrigation on debris and smear layer on canal walls prepared by two rotary techniques: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2000; 26:6›10.
33. Huang TY, Gulabivala K, Ng YL. A biomolecular film ex-vivo model to evaluate the influence of canal dimensions and irrigation variables on the efficacy of irrigation. Int Endod J 2008; 41: 60-71.
34. McGill S, Gulabivala K, Mordan N, Ng YL. The efficacy of dynamic irrigation using a commercially available system (RinsEndo) determined by removal of a collagen ‘ biomolecular film’ from an ex vivo model. Int Endod J 2008; 41: 602-608.
35. Fukumoto Y, Kikuchi I, Yoshioka T, Kobayashi C, Suda H. An ex vivo evaluation of a new root canal irrigation technique with intracanal aspiration. Int Endod J 2006; 39: 93-39.
36. Nielsen BA, Baumgartner CJ. Comparison of the EndoVac system to needle irrigation of root canals. J Endod 2007; 33: 611-615.