The Impact of Various Sodium Hypochlorite Formulations on Smear Layer Removal Uppal Amandeep Singh1, Singla Ruchi2,*, Bhushan Jagat3, Kaur Manjot4, Kaur Prabhjot5 1MDS, BDS, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. HSJ Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Panjab University, Chandigarh, Email: amanjivi@gmail.com 2MDS, BDS, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. HSJ Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India, Email: dr.ruchisingla@gmail.com 3MDS, BDS, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. HSJ Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Panjab University, Chandigarh, Email: drjagat@gmail.com 4BDS, Assistant Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. HSJ Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Panjab University, Chandigarh, Email: manjotkaur99@yahoo.com 5BDS, Assistant Professor, Department of Public Health Dentistry, Dr. HSJ Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Panjab University, Chandigarh, Email: drjyotikins@yahoo.com *Corresponding Author: Dr. Ruchi Singla, MDS, BDS, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. HSJ Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India, Email: dr.ruchisingla@gmail.com
Online Published on 23 July, 2024. Abstract Background Smear layer is formed during root canal instrumentation. Although there no corelation has been found between smear layer and prognosis of root canal treatment. But creation of smear layer leads to many drawbacks such as blockage of the surface of the dentinal tubules which prevents the infiltration of irrigant, intracanal medicament, and sealer into the tubules. This study's main objective is to ascertain which of the three-sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) formulations—Chlorcid, Chlorid V, and ChlorCidTM Surf—is most suited for eliminating the smear layer after irrigation. Methods Two control groups (n = 5) and three experimental groups (n = 15) were randomly assigned to the fifty-five removed mandibular premolars depending on the irrigant. Group 1, the negative control, did not receive any biomechanical root canal preparation. Group 2, which served as the positive control, had their root canals biomechanically prepared while using NaOCl as an irrigant and finally irrigated with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). The experimental group used Hyflex CM rotary files to prepare root canals till 25/04. Sodium hypochlorite was utilized as an irrigant in groups 3, 4, and 5, in the liquid form (Chlorcid), viscous (ChlorcidV), and surfactant (Chlorcid Surf), respectively. Roots were sectioned longitudinally. The root canal smear layer was graded using scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis, and the range of score was one to three. For the purpose of statistical analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U test were used simultaneously. Results In Group 2, the positive control group, smear layers were eliminated. There was no discernible variation among the groups that performed the experiment. There was a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between positive control group (Group 2) and experimental groups (Groups 3-5). Conclusion The study concludes thatChlorcid, Chlorid V and ChlorCid™ Surf cannot remove smear layer when used as an irrigant.Addition of surfactant to NaOCl solution does not improve its ability to remove smear layer, proving that using NaOCl alone for irrigation is inefficient. In addition, other irrigants such as EDTA is required for the root canal smear layer removal. Therefore, NaOCl must be used in combination with other irrigants for complete smear layer removal. Top Keywords Sodium hypochlorite, Smear layer, Scanning electron microscope, Irrigation. Top |