IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of Etidronic Acid, Malic Acid, & EDTA on Root Canal Dentin - An SEM Analysis
Objectives: OBJECTIVE
The main objective is to analyse the exposure of root dentinal tubules with 17% EDTA, 9% Etidronic Acid, and 7% Malic acid using scanning electron microscope
Methods: MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Single rooted extracted human tooth was taken and disinfected.
The samples were decoronated using diamond disc.
The samples were divided into three groups and three different irrigants were used to irrigate the three groups separately.
Root canals were enlarged till 80size K file and GG drill no 4
The teeth were split into two equal longitudinal halves using chisel and mallet and then immersed in the respective irrigant for 30 mins and then viewed under Scanning Electron Microscope and scoring were given accordingly.
Results: RESULT:
All irrigants tested, removed smear layer effectively but there was a significant difference between 7% Malic acid and 17% EDTA (p value= 0.052) ; 7% Malic acid and 9% Etidronic acid ( p value=0.055) ; There was no significant difference between 17% EDTA and 9% Etidronic acid (p value=0.965). Therefore compared to 7% Malic acid , 9% Etidronic acid is more effective in smear layer removal as 17% EDTA.
Conclusions: CONCLUSION:
17% EDTA and 9% Etidronic acid showed almost the same score compared to 7% Malic acid therefore 9% Etidronic acid can be used as a better alternate for 17% EDTA as desmearing agent.
The main objective is to analyse the exposure of root dentinal tubules with 17% EDTA, 9% Etidronic Acid, and 7% Malic acid using scanning electron microscope
Methods: MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Single rooted extracted human tooth was taken and disinfected.
The samples were decoronated using diamond disc.
The samples were divided into three groups and three different irrigants were used to irrigate the three groups separately.
Root canals were enlarged till 80size K file and GG drill no 4
The teeth were split into two equal longitudinal halves using chisel and mallet and then immersed in the respective irrigant for 30 mins and then viewed under Scanning Electron Microscope and scoring were given accordingly.
Results: RESULT:
All irrigants tested, removed smear layer effectively but there was a significant difference between 7% Malic acid and 17% EDTA (p value= 0.052) ; 7% Malic acid and 9% Etidronic acid ( p value=0.055) ; There was no significant difference between 17% EDTA and 9% Etidronic acid (p value=0.965). Therefore compared to 7% Malic acid , 9% Etidronic acid is more effective in smear layer removal as 17% EDTA.
Conclusions: CONCLUSION:
17% EDTA and 9% Etidronic acid showed almost the same score compared to 7% Malic acid therefore 9% Etidronic acid can be used as a better alternate for 17% EDTA as desmearing agent.