4.5 Article

Effectiveness of several solutions to prevent the formation of precipitate due to the interaction between sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine and its effect on bond strength of an epoxy-based sealer

期刊

INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
卷 48, 期 5, 页码 478-483

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/iej.12337

关键词

debris; dentine; endodontics; scanning electron microscopy; smear layer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimTo evaluate the effectiveness of isopropyl alcohol, saline or distilled water to prevent the precipitate formed between sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and chlorhexidine (CHX) and its effect on the bond strength of an epoxy-based sealer in radicular dentine. MethodologyThe root canals of 50 extracted human canines (n=10) were instrumented. In G1, root canals were irrigated with 17% EDTA and 2.5% NaOCl; G2, as G1, except that 2% CHX was used as the final irrigant. In the other groups, intermediate flushes with isopropyl alcohol (G3), saline (G4) or distilled water (G5) were used between NaOCl and CHX. The specimens were submitted to SEM analysis to evaluate the presence of debris and smear layer, in the apical and cervical segments. In sequence, fifty extracted human canines were distributed into five groups (n=10), similar to the SEM study. After root filling, the roots were sectioned transversally to obtain dentine slices, in the cervical, middle and apical thirds. The root filling was submitted to a push-out bond strength test using an electromechanical testing machine. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests (=5%). ResultsAll groups had similar amounts of residue precipitated on the canal walls (P>0.05). The push-out bond strength values were similar for all groups, independently of the root third evaluated (P>0.05). ConclusionsIsopropyl alcohol, saline and distilled water failed to prevent the precipitation of residues on canal walls following the use of NaOCl and CHX. The residues did not interfere with the push-out bond strength of the root filling.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据