Combined use of XP-Endo Finisher and different chelating agents on the smear layer

Q3 Dentistry Endodontology Pub Date : 2024-03-16 DOI:10.4103/endo.endo_97_23
Meenu Elizabeth Saju, Ramya Raghu, A. Shetty, Lekha Santhosh, Subhashini Rajasekhara, Priya C. Yadav
{"title":"Combined use of XP-Endo Finisher and different chelating agents on the smear layer","authors":"Meenu Elizabeth Saju, Ramya Raghu, A. Shetty, Lekha Santhosh, Subhashini Rajasekhara, Priya C. Yadav","doi":"10.4103/endo.endo_97_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n The aim of this study was to assess the effect of XP-Endo Finisher (XPF) in conjunction with three different chelating agents, namely, 0.2% chitosan nanoparticles (CNP), 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), and 7% maleic acid (MA) on residual debris and smear layer on the root canal walls of the mandibular premolars.\n \n \n \n Eighty extracted human mandibular premolars were used in the study. Canals were prepared using an XP-Endo Shaper, and the final finishing was done with an XPF file. Teeth were randomly divided into four experimental groups based on chelating agents, Group I (XPF + 0.2% CNP), Group II (XPF + 17% EDTA), Group III (XPF + MA), and Group IV XPF + 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (control group). Teeth were longitudinally split and prepared for scanning electron microscopy analysis. For comparing the smear layer and debris score between groups, the Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA was used, followed by the post hoc Bonferroni test. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05.\n \n \n \n Group I (XPF + 0.2% CNP) gave the best results (P = 0.001) in all the thirds of root canal, followed by Group II (XPF + 17% EDTA) with P = 0.001. Group III (XPF + MA) showed results similar to that of the control group (XPF + NaOCl) with P = 0.001. There was a significant difference in the scores between Group I (XPF + CNP) and the other three groups.\n \n \n \n In all three-thirds of a root canal, the use of XPF + 0.2% CNP performed best at removing the smear layer. This was followed by XPF + 17% EDTA and XPF + 7% MA. For all groups, smear layer removal was less efficient in the apical third.\n","PeriodicalId":11607,"journal":{"name":"Endodontology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endodontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/endo.endo_97_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of XP-Endo Finisher (XPF) in conjunction with three different chelating agents, namely, 0.2% chitosan nanoparticles (CNP), 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), and 7% maleic acid (MA) on residual debris and smear layer on the root canal walls of the mandibular premolars. Eighty extracted human mandibular premolars were used in the study. Canals were prepared using an XP-Endo Shaper, and the final finishing was done with an XPF file. Teeth were randomly divided into four experimental groups based on chelating agents, Group I (XPF + 0.2% CNP), Group II (XPF + 17% EDTA), Group III (XPF + MA), and Group IV XPF + 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (control group). Teeth were longitudinally split and prepared for scanning electron microscopy analysis. For comparing the smear layer and debris score between groups, the Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA was used, followed by the post hoc Bonferroni test. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Group I (XPF + 0.2% CNP) gave the best results (P = 0.001) in all the thirds of root canal, followed by Group II (XPF + 17% EDTA) with P = 0.001. Group III (XPF + MA) showed results similar to that of the control group (XPF + NaOCl) with P = 0.001. There was a significant difference in the scores between Group I (XPF + CNP) and the other three groups. In all three-thirds of a root canal, the use of XPF + 0.2% CNP performed best at removing the smear layer. This was followed by XPF + 17% EDTA and XPF + 7% MA. For all groups, smear layer removal was less efficient in the apical third.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在涂抹层上联合使用 XP-Endo Finisher 和不同的螯合剂
本研究的目的是评估 XP-Endo Finisher(XPF)与三种不同螯合剂(即 0.2% 壳聚糖纳米颗粒 (CNP)、17% 乙二胺四乙酸 (EDTA) 和 7% 马来酸 (MA))结合使用对下颌前磨牙根管壁残留碎屑和涂抹层的影响。 研究使用了 80 颗拔出的下颌前磨牙。使用 XP-Endo Shaper 准备根管,并使用 XPF 锉刀进行最后的修整。根据螯合剂将牙齿随机分为四个实验组:第一组(XPF + 0.2% CNP)、第二组(XPF + 17% EDTA)、第三组(XPF + MA)和第四组 XPF + 2.5% 次氯酸钠(NaOCl)(对照组)。将牙齿纵向劈开,准备进行扫描电子显微镜分析。比较各组间的涂片层和碎片得分时,采用 Kruskal-Wallis 方差分析,然后进行事后 Bonferroni 检验。显著性水平设定为 P <0.05。 第一组(XPF + 0.2% CNP)在所有三分之二根管中的效果最好(P = 0.001),其次是第二组(XPF + 17% EDTA),P = 0.001。第三组(XPF + MA)的结果与对照组(XPF + NaOCl)相似,P = 0.001。第一组(XPF + CNP)与其他三组的得分有明显差异。 在所有三分之二的根管中,使用 XPF + 0.2% CNP 清除涂抹层的效果最好。其次是 XPF + 17% EDTA 和 XPF + 7% MA。在所有组别中,根尖三分之一处去除涂抹层的效率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Endodontology
Endodontology Medicine-Anatomy
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊最新文献
Comparative evaluation of the clinical and radiographic success of regenerative endodontic procedures in immature versus mature permanent incisors with apical periodontitis: A prospective observational study Sealing efficacy of various rubber dam barrier materials used for isolation procedures: A randomized controlled trial Evaluation of fracture resistance of radicular dentin treated with nanochitosan-loaded calcium hydroxide and nanographene-loaded calcium hydroxide, when used as intracanal medicament: An in vitro study Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars using indirect and direct composite onlays: A comparative study Effect of bonding pericervical dentin with reinforcing materials on strength of root-filled mandibular single-canal premolars: An in vitro study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1