EVALUATION OF ALIZARIN DYE PENETRATION INTO DENTINAL TUBULES FOLLOWING FINAL RINSE BY Q-MIX AND APPLE VINEGAR: AN IN VITRO STUDY
Saied, S., Moussa, S., Leheta, N., Mourad, G. (2021). EVALUATION OF ALIZARIN DYE PENETRATION INTO DENTINAL TUBULES FOLLOWING FINAL RINSE BY Q-MIX AND APPLE VINEGAR: AN IN VITRO STUDY. EKB Journal Management System, 46(3), 104-109. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.34083.1077
Samar Saied; Sybel Moussa; Nihal Leheta; Ghada Mourad. "EVALUATION OF ALIZARIN DYE PENETRATION INTO DENTINAL TUBULES FOLLOWING FINAL RINSE BY Q-MIX AND APPLE VINEGAR: AN IN VITRO STUDY". EKB Journal Management System, 46, 3, 2021, 104-109. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.34083.1077
Saied, S., Moussa, S., Leheta, N., Mourad, G. (2021). 'EVALUATION OF ALIZARIN DYE PENETRATION INTO DENTINAL TUBULES FOLLOWING FINAL RINSE BY Q-MIX AND APPLE VINEGAR: AN IN VITRO STUDY', EKB Journal Management System, 46(3), pp. 104-109. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.34083.1077
Saied, S., Moussa, S., Leheta, N., Mourad, G. EVALUATION OF ALIZARIN DYE PENETRATION INTO DENTINAL TUBULES FOLLOWING FINAL RINSE BY Q-MIX AND APPLE VINEGAR: AN IN VITRO STUDY. EKB Journal Management System, 2021; 46(3): 104-109. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.34083.1077

EVALUATION OF ALIZARIN DYE PENETRATION INTO DENTINAL TUBULES FOLLOWING FINAL RINSE BY Q-MIX AND APPLE VINEGAR: AN IN VITRO STUDY

Alexandria Dental Journal
Article 4, Volume 46, Issue 3, December 2021, Page 104-109  XML PDF (902.63 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2020.34083.1077
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Samar Saied email 1; Sybel Moussa2; Nihal Leheta3; Ghada Mourad4
1Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
2Professor of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
3Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
4Department of Histology and Cell Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Abstract
Introduction: Successful treatment of a root canal aims for removal of microorganisms from the canal. Therefore, intraradicular removal of the smear layer is a remarkable measure for long-established endodontic success.
Aim of the study: to assess Alizarin dye penetration into dentinal tubules following Q-Mix, apple vinegar, and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) under confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Materials and method: Thirty extracted single-canaled mandibular premolars went through decoronating to 15 mm length to undergo cleaning and instrumentation. Then, they were allocated at random into three groups based on the final rinse used: Group I: 10 ml of 17% EDTA for 1 minute, Group II: 10 ml of apple vinegar for 1 minute, and Group III: 10 ml Q-MIX for 1 minute. All root canals were irrigated by 5ml Sodium hypochlorite labeled with Alizarin red. Samples were horizontally sectioned and evaluated under CLSM at distinct canal levels. Data were analyzed using (Kruskal Wallis and Friedman’s) Tests.
Results: The three tested groups showed no statistically significant difference with p> 0.05. Regarding the coronal and middle thirds of EDTA, ACV, and Q-Mix groups, most of the specimens recorded score 3 (less than 50% of the whole number of dentinal tubules were penetrated with the dye) while the specimens of apical thirds recorded score 2 (traces of the dye could be seen along the internal canal surface).
Conclusions: Q-Mix, Apple vinegar, and EDTA promoted the penetration through dentinal tubules in the coronal and middle sections superior to the apical section of the root canal.
Keywords
Smear layer; Irrigating solutions; Qmix; Apple vinegar; Confocal Laser Scanning microscopy
References
  1. Wong DT, Cheung GS. Extension of bactericidal effect of sodium hypochlorite into dentinal tubules. J Endod. 2014;40:825–9.
  2. Wang Z, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. Effect of smear layer against disinfection protocols on enterococcus faecalis-infected dentin. J Endod. 2013;39:1395–400.
  3. Biel P, Mohn D, Attin T, Zehnder M. Interactions between the Tetrasodium salts of EDTA and 1-Hydroxyethane 1,1 Diphosphonic Acid with Sodium hypochlorite Irrigants. J Endod. 2017;43:657–61.
  4. Aksel H, Serper A. Concentration and time-dependent effect of initial sodium hypochlorite on the ability of QMix and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid to remove smear layer. J Conserv Dent. 2017;20:185–9.
  5. Mota AC, de Castro RD, de Araújo Oliveira J, de Oliveira Lima E. Antifungal activity of apple cider vinegar on Candida species involved in denture stomatitis. J Prosthodont. 2015;24:296–302.
  6. Küçük M, Kermeoğlu F. Efficacy of different irrigation methods on dentinal tubule penetration of Chlorhexidine, QMix and Irritrol: A confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Aust Endod J. 2019;45:202–8.
  7. Machtou PP. Manual dynamic activation technique. Clin Dent Rev. 2018;2:21.
  8. Paragliola R, Franco V, Fabiani C, Mazzoni A, Nato F, Tay FR, et al. Final rinse optimization: Influence of different agitation protocols. J Endod. 2010;36:282–5.
  9. Chen SY, Feng Z, Yi X. A general introduction to adjustment for multiple comparisons. J Thorac Dis. 2017;9:1725–9.
  10. Jagzap JB, Patil SS, Gade VJ, Chandhok DJ, Upagade MA, Thakur DA. Effectiveness of three different irrigants-17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, Q-MIX, and phytic acid in smear layer removal: A comparative scanning electron microscope study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2017;8:459–63.
  11. Vadhana S, Latha J, Velmurugan N. Evaluation of penetration depth of 2% chlorhexidine digluconate into root dentinal tubules using confocal laser scanning microscope. Restor Dent Endod. 2015;40:149.
  12. Moon YM, Kim HC, Bae KS, Baek SH, Shon WJ, Lee W. Effect of laser-activated irrigation of 1320-nanometer Nd:YAG laser on sealer penetration in curved root canals. J Endod. 2012;38:531–5.
  13. Elakanti S, Cherukuri G, Rao VG, Chandrasekhar V, Rao AS, Tummala M. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of QMixTM 2 in 1, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans. J Conserv Dent. 2015;18:128–31.
  14. Eliot C, Hatton JF, Stewart GP, Hildebolt CF, Gillespie MJ, Gutmann JL. The effect of the irrigant QMix on removal of canal wall smear layer: an ex vivo study. Odontology. 2014;102:232–40.
  15. Chaudhry S, Yadav S, Talwar S, Verma M. Effect of EndoActivator and Er,Cr:YSGG laser activation of Qmix, as final endodontic irrigant, on sealer penetration: A Confocal microscopic study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9:218–22.
  16. Dornelles-Morgental R, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, de Faria- Júnior NB, Hungaro-Duarte MA, Kuga MC, Tanomaru-Filho M. Antibacterial efficacy of endodontic irrigating solutions and their combinations in root canals contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology. 2011;112:396–400.
  17. Tuncer AK. Effect of QMix 2in1 on sealer penetration into the dentinal tubules. J Endod. 2015;41:257–60.
  18. Bolles JA, He J, Svoboda KK, Schneiderman E, Glickman GN. Comparison of vibringe, endoactivator, and needle irrigation on sealer penetration in extracted human teeth. J Endod. 2013;39:708–11.
  19. Akcay M, Arslan H, Mese M, Durmus N, Capar ID. Effect of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming, passive ultrasonic, and sonic irrigation techniques on dentinal tubule penetration of irrigation solution: a confocal microscopic study. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21:2205–12.
  20. Dotto SR, Travassos RM, De Oliveira EP, de Lima Machado ME, Martins JL. Evaluation of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) solution and gel for smear layer removal. Aust Endod J. 2007;33:62–5.
  21. Dai L, Khechen K, Khan S, Gillen B, Loushine BA, Wimmer CE, et al. The effect of QMix, an experimental antibacterial root canal irrigant, on removal of canal wall smear layer and debris. J Endod. 2011;37:80–4.
  22. Candeiro GT, Matos IB, Costa CF, Fonteles CS, Vale MS. A comparative scanning electron microscopy evaluation of smear layer removal with apple vinegar and sodium hypochlorite associated with EDTA. J Appl Oral Sci. 2011;19:639–43.
  23. Tedesco M, Chain MC, Bortoluzzi EA, Garcia LD, Alves AM, Teixeira CS. Comparison of two observational methods, scanning electron and confocal laser scanning microscopies, in the adhesive interface analysis of endodontic sealers to root dentine. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22:2353–61.
  24. Banode AM, Gade V, Patil S, Gade J, Chandhok D, Sinkar R. Comparative scanning electron microscopy evaluation of smear layer removal with 17% Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, 10% citric acid and newer irrigant QMix: In vitro study. Indian J Oral Heal Res. 2015;1:56–61.
  25. Vemuri S, Kolanu SK, Varri S, Pabbati RK, Penumaka R, Bolla N. Effect of different final irrigating solutions on smear layer removal in apical third of root canal: A scanning electron microscope study. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19:87–90.
  26. Ballal NV, Kandian S, Mala K, Bhat KS, Acharya S. Comparison of the efficacy of maleic acid and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid in smear layer removal from instrumented human root canal: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2009;35:1573–6.
  27. Spanó JC, Silva RG, Guedes DF, Sousa-Neto MD, Estrela C, Pécora JD. Atomic absorption spectrometry and scanning electron microscopy evaluation of concentration of calcium ions and smear layer removal with root canal chelators. J Endod. 2009;35:727– 30.
  28. Kirchhoff A, Viapiana R, Miranda C, Sousa Neto M, Cruz Filho A. Comparison of the apple vinegar with other chelating solutions on smear layer and calcium ions removal from the root canal. Indian J Dent Res. 2014;25:370–4.
  29. Aydın ZU, Özyürek T, Keskin B, Baran T. Effect of chitosan nanoparticle, QMix, and EDTA on TotalFill BC sealers’ dentinal tubule penetration: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study. Odontology. 2019;107:64–71.
  30. Bukiet F, Soler T, Guivarch M, Camps J, Tassery H, Cuisinier F et al. Factors affecting the viscosity of sodium hypochlorite and their effect on irrigant flow. Int Endod J. 2013;46:954–61.
Statistics
Article View: 321
PDF Download: 544