IADR Abstract Archives
Chitosan Effect on Canal Wall Cleanliness: An ex-vivo SEM Study
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the root canal cleaning efficiency (debris and smear layer removal) of chitosan compared to sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and NaOCl/EDTA as final flush irrigants.
Methods: Forty extracted, maxillary, central incisors were used. Chemo-mechanical preparation was done using the ProTaper rotary system up to F5; 2ml of 2.6% NaOCl was used as a routine irrigant between every two consecutive instruments. Specimens were then divided into four groups (n=10) according to the final irrigating solution(s)/regimen as follows: 5ml 0.2% chitosan for 3 min, 5ml 2.6% NaOCl for 3 min, 5ml 2.6% NaOCl for 3 min followed by 5ml 17% EDTA for 1 min or 5ml saline for 3 min as control. Roots were longitudinally split and examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) across the entire canal wall and at the apical, middle and coronal thirds for debris (1000x) and smear layer (2000x) evaluation using a scoring system (Hülsmann et al 1997). Three, calibrated, blind examiners assessed the micrographs separately. Data were statistically analyzed (Kruskal Wallis, Mann Whitney, Friedman, Wilcoxon signed rank, p<0.05).
Results: There was no statistically significant difference between chitosan and NaOCl/EDTA (p>0.05) for either debris or smear layer scores and both were less than NaOCl and saline (p<0.05); NaOCl showed less debris scores than saline (p<0.05). Regarding debris scores, no significant difference was found among the canal thirds for chitosan and NaOCl/EDTA (p>0.05). The coronal third showed less smear layer scores than the apical third for all groups (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Irrigation with 0.2% chitosan solution was as effective in canal wall cleaning as 2.6% NaOCl/17% EDTA regarding debris and smear layer removal; both showed cleaner walls than NaOCl and saline. Regardless of the irrigation protocol, the apical third retained more smear layer than the coronal thirds.
Methods: Forty extracted, maxillary, central incisors were used. Chemo-mechanical preparation was done using the ProTaper rotary system up to F5; 2ml of 2.6% NaOCl was used as a routine irrigant between every two consecutive instruments. Specimens were then divided into four groups (n=10) according to the final irrigating solution(s)/regimen as follows: 5ml 0.2% chitosan for 3 min, 5ml 2.6% NaOCl for 3 min, 5ml 2.6% NaOCl for 3 min followed by 5ml 17% EDTA for 1 min or 5ml saline for 3 min as control. Roots were longitudinally split and examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) across the entire canal wall and at the apical, middle and coronal thirds for debris (1000x) and smear layer (2000x) evaluation using a scoring system (Hülsmann et al 1997). Three, calibrated, blind examiners assessed the micrographs separately. Data were statistically analyzed (Kruskal Wallis, Mann Whitney, Friedman, Wilcoxon signed rank, p<0.05).
Results: There was no statistically significant difference between chitosan and NaOCl/EDTA (p>0.05) for either debris or smear layer scores and both were less than NaOCl and saline (p<0.05); NaOCl showed less debris scores than saline (p<0.05). Regarding debris scores, no significant difference was found among the canal thirds for chitosan and NaOCl/EDTA (p>0.05). The coronal third showed less smear layer scores than the apical third for all groups (p<0.05).
Conclusions: Irrigation with 0.2% chitosan solution was as effective in canal wall cleaning as 2.6% NaOCl/17% EDTA regarding debris and smear layer removal; both showed cleaner walls than NaOCl and saline. Regardless of the irrigation protocol, the apical third retained more smear layer than the coronal thirds.