Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
101]
Original Article
Abstract Introduction: The aim of this study was to assess the ability of 7% maleic acid, 0.5% peracetic acid(PAA),
and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid(EDTA) in removing smear layer from root canal system of human
teeth using scanning electron microscopic analysis(SEM).
Materials and Methods: Thirtyfive non-carious human anterior teeth with single roots were selected for the
study. Chemomechanical preparation was done using crown down technique with irrigation of 2.5% NaOCl
after every instrument use. Depending on the final irrigation solution, the samples were divided randomly
into three experimental groups and one control group:(1) The maleic acid group: 07%(n=10),(2) the
PAA group: 0.5%(n=10),(3) the EDTA group: 17%(n=10), and(4) the control group: 0.9% saline(n=5).
These teeth were then evaluated using SEM analysis for the absence or presence of smear layer, thereby
analyzing their cleaning effectiveness in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root canal system.
The inter examiners reliability was verified with the use of Kappa test. The data of the score for intragroup
comparison and intergroup comparison for evaluation of the presence or absence of smear layer were
statistically analyzed by Pearson Chisquare test. The level of statistical significance was set at P<0.05.
Results: In the coronal thirds of the root canal, there was no statistically significant difference between
the EDTA and the maleic acid groups when evaluated for their efficacy at smear layer removal. Whereas,
maleic acid performed significantly better than PAA and EDTA in removing smear layer from middle and
apical thirds of the root canal system.
Conclusion: Afinal irrigation with 7% maleic acid is more efficacious than 17% EDTA and 0.5% PAA when
used as a smear layer removal agent in the apical third of the root canal system.
Key Words: Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, maleic acid, peracetic acid, root canal instrumentation, smear
layer
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
AttributionNonCommercialShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and
Access this article online build upon the work noncommercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations
are licensed under the identical terms.
Quick Response Code:
Website:
For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com
www.saudiendodj.com
There have been controversial reports over the maintenance MATERIALS AND METHODS
or removal of this endodontic smear layer. While some
suggest that its persistence will alter dentinal permeability by Ethical clearance was attained for the use of human extracted
blocking the dentinal tubules thus limiting bacterial or toxin teeth(IEC 342/2016). Thirtyfive non-carious anterior teeth
penetration,[57] others believe that it can harbor bacteria and with typeI canal anatomy and straight roots were selected for
cause leakage thus necessitating its entire removal from the root the study. Radiographs were taken to ascertain the presence
canal walls.[810] This loosely adherent structure is also known of single, non-calcified canal with mature apex. Teeth showing
to prevent adaptation of endodontic sealers to canal walls as the presence of resorption or obturation of root canal system
well as interfere with penetration of irrigants and intracanal were excluded from this study. The teeth were cleaned with a
medicaments into the dentinal tubules.[1114] brush to remove the superficial soft tissues following which
they were stored in 0.2% sodium azide(Sigma Chemical Co.,
Several techniques have been employed for the removal of smear St. Louis, MO, USA) at 4C.
layer ranging from the use of chelating agents and ultrasonics to
lasers during root canal therapy.[15] Current methods to remove A standardized root length of 14mm was achieved by
the smear layer might involve the use of a chelating agent during decoronation of the samples at the cementoenamel junction.
irrigation or as a final rinse in combination with other irrigants Following this, the samples were randomly divided into three
having tissue dissolving properties.[16] experimental groups(n=10) and one control group(n=5). A
no. 10 K file (Mani Inc., Tochigi Ken, Japan) was used to assess
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid(EDTA), a calcium chelating the working length. It was inserted into each canal until it was
agent is used routinely in endodontics for the removal of smear just visible at the apical foramen (observed under magnifying
layer.[17] The combination of sodium hypochlorite(2.5%5%) loupes) and 1 mm was subtracted from this point. Thereafter,
and EDTA(10%17%) has been proven to be successful in the apices were sealed using sticky wax. The canals were prepared
the removal of organic and inorganic debris.[18,19] Studies have using ProTaper nickel titanium rotary instruments(Dentsply/
stated that a final irrigation of the root canal with EDTA can Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK, USA) to size F4 in a crowndown
open up the dentinal tubules thereby increasing the number of technique. Throughout the preparation, canals were irrigated
lateral canals to be filled eventually by the sealer.[20] with 2.5% NaOCl(KMC Pharmacy, Manipal, Karnataka,
India) solution for 1min using 29gauge Navi Tip side vented
Maleic acid is used as an acid conditioner in adhesive needle(Ultradent products Inc., South Jordan, UT, USA) after
dentistry.[21] This mild organic acid is found to remove smear every instrument change. The needle was introduced 1mm short
layer from the surface of teeth.[22] Ballal etal. have shown that of the working length for all samples by adjusting the rubber
smear layer removal from the apical third of the root canal was stopper on the needle to the desired length.
performed better using 7% maleic acid than EDTA.[23]
The final irrigation sequence in each group was as follows:
Peracetic acid(PAA) is one of the most potent disinfectants. Group 1:5ml of 7% maleic acid was used for 1min
It has been used as a single endodontic irrigant in the former (KMC Pharmacy, Karnataka, India)
Group2:5ml of 0.5% PAA was used for 1min (National There was a highly significant difference between the maleic
Peroxide Ltd., India) acid, PAA, and EDTA groups in removing the smear layer in
Group3:5ml of 17% EDTA was used for 1min (Presvest the apical third of the root canal(P<0.05). No significant
Denpro, India) difference was noted between the EDTA and the maleic acid
Group4:5ml of 0.9% saline was used for 1min (Fresenius groups in smear layer removal from the coronal third. Both of
Kabi Pvt. Ltd., India). these irrigants along with sodium hypochlorite removed smear
layer efficiently in the coronal third of the instrumented root
Thereafter, drying of canals was carried out using sterile paper canal walls. PAA removed smear layer equivalent to that removed
points(DentsplyMaillefer, Ballaigues, China). Longitudinal by saline in the coronal third but in the apical and middle third;
grooves were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces it performed better than saline. However, in the middle and
of each root by using a diamond disc(Horico, Germany) apical third, maleic acid performed significantly better when
at a slow speed. Care was taken not to penetrate the root compared to EDTA or PAA[Figure2]. In EDTA and PAA
canal. Achisel was used to split the root into two halves. treated specimens there was moderate smear layer present,
The specimens were dehydrated using 100% ethyl alcohol and in some areas, peritubular dentinal erosion was observed
and placed in furnace at 60C for 24h. The samples were [Figures 3 and 4]. In the control(saline) group, there was the
manually marked at the coronal (1012mm from apex), presence of excessive smear layer in the coronal, middle, and
middle(67mm from apex), and apical (12mm from apical thirds of the root canal walls.
apex) thirds of each specimen before the scanning electron
microscopic analysis(SEM) analysis. The samples were DISCUSSION
mounted on metallic stubs followed by gold sputtering using
an ion sputter. These samples were then examined under Endodontic smear layer for med during root canal
scanning electron microscope(JEOL Ltd., USA) for the instrumentation has been shown to significantly increase
presence or absence of smear layer. Several photomicrographs apical leakage, thus necessitating its removal to facilitate close
were taken at1500, 20kV magnification to observe the adaptation of guttapercha to the root canal wall.[12] In addition,
surface morphology of the canal walls. These were evaluated this non-homogeneous structure may disintegrate around leaky
by two independent examiners unaware of the experimental filling margins resulting in the formation of voids between root
groups to which the samples belonged. canal wall and the filling material.[8]
The images were scored according to the criteria given by In this study, 2.5% NaOCl was used for the chemomechanical
Torabinejad etal.:[28] preparation between each instrument, which could also remove
1=No smear layer(no smear layer on the surface of the the organic contents of smear layer. This is in accordance to
root canal; all tubules were clean and open) a study which stated that diluted NaOCl is as effective as a
2=Moderate smear layer(no smear layer on the surface greater concentration of NaOCl for the removal of an organic
of the root canal, but tubules contained debris) component of smear layer.[28]
3=Heavy smear layer(smear layer covered the root canal
The outcome of this research revealed that 7% maleic acid
surface and the tubules).
was better in the removal of smear layer than 17% EDTA and
The inter examiners reliability was verified using the Kappa 0.5% PAA in the middle and apical thirds of the root canal.
test. The data of the score for intragroup comparison and In the coronal third, both maleic acid and EDTA were equally
intergroup comparison to evaluate the presence or absence of effective without any statistical difference between them. This
smear layer were statistically analyzed by Pearson Chisquare is in agreement with other studies.[28,29] In this study, the apical
test. The level of statistical significance was set at P<0.05. part of canal preparation was done up to ISO size no.40 which
is in consensus with other studies stating that larger apical
RESULTS preparation as compared to a smaller preparation produces a
greater reduction in remaining bacteria and dentin debris.[30]
Kappa results displayed a fair(0.41) agreement between the two Even though the apical preparation was performed up to ISO
examiner values for scoring smear layer in the coronal, middle, size no.40, EDTA and PAA were not able to remove smear
and apical thirds of the root canal. layer effectively when compared with 7% maleic acid.
Figure1 represents the comparative percentage of smear layer This might be related to the differences in surface tension
removal at the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root between 1 7% EDTA(0.0783N/m) and 7% maleic
canal by the test irrigants. acid(0.06345N/m).[23] EDTA is a chelating agent effective
Figure1: Comparison of the percentage of smear layer removal among the test irrigants at coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root canal system
a b c
Figure3: Photomicrographs of root canal walls instrumented with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (2000, 20 kV). (a) The coronal, (b)
middle, and (c) apical thirds showing a moderate amount of debris
efficacy of maleic acid and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid in smear with three irrigating solutions: Ascanning electron microscopy evaluation.
layer removal from instrumented human root canal: A scanning electron JEndod 2009;35:9003.
microscopic study. JEndod 2009;35:15736. 30. UsmanN, BaumgartnerJC, MarshallJG. Influence of instrument size on
24. Khlfluck I, KlammtJ. Suitability of peracetic acid for root canal disinfection. root canal debridement. JEndod 2004;30:1102.
Stomatol DDR 1980;30:55863. 31. Paqu F, LuderHU, SenerB, ZehnderM. Tubular sclerosis rather than the
25. McDonnellG, RussellAD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: Activity, action, smear layer impedes dye penetration into the dentine of endodontically
and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 1999;12:14779. instrumented root canals. Int Endod J 2006;39:1825.
26. ParkSH, CheonHL, ParkKH, ChungMS, ChoiSH, RyuS, etal. Inactivation 32. Hlsmann M, HeckendorffM, LennonA. Chelating agents in root canal
of biofilm cells of foodborne pathogen by aerosolized sanitizers. Int J Food treatment: Mode of action and indications for their use. Int Endod J
Microbiol 2012;154:1304. 2003;36:81030.
27. DeDeus G, Souza EM, Marins JR, Reis C, Paciornik S, Zehnder M. 33. MarabiniL, FrigerioS, ChiesaraE, RadiceS. Toxicity evaluation of surface
Smear layer dissolution by peracetic acid of low concentration. Int Endod water treated with different disinfectants in HepG2cells. Water Res
J 2011;44:48590. 2006;40:26772.
28. TorabinejadM, KhademiAA, BabagoliJ, ChoY, JohnsonWB, BozhilovK, 34. BoutsioukisC, LambrianidisT, VasiliadisL. Clinical relevance of standardization
etal. A new solution for the removal of the smear layer. JEndod of endodontic irrigation needle dimensions according to the ISO 9,626:1991
2003;29:1705. and 9,626:1991/Amd 1:2001 specification. Int Endod J 2007;40:7006.
29. ManciniM, ArmellinE, CasagliaA, CerroniL, CianconiL. Acomparative 35. RamZ. Effectiveness of root canal irrigation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral
study of smear layer removal and erosion in apical intraradicular dentine Pathol 1977;44:30612.