Farklı Zaman Aralıklarında Sonik Ajitasyon ile Kullanılan Fitik Asit Solüsyonlarının Smear Tabakasını Uzaklaştırma Etkinliği ve Erozyon Üzerindeki Etkileri

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 13 - 19, 28.01.2021

İsmail Ömer Yeniyurt , Cemal Tinaz

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı sonik ajitasyon ile farklı zaman aralıklarında, fitik asit solüsyonunun kök kanal duvarlarında enstrumantasyon sonrasında oluşan smear tabakasının uzaklaştırılmasının etkinliği, kök kanal duvarlarında meydana gelen debris ve erozyonun değerlendirilmesidir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Gruplar sırasıyla; Grup 1: Sonik ajitasyon ile 5 mL %0.5 fitik asit (60 sn), Grup 2: Sonik ajitasyon ile 5 mL %0.5 fitik asit (30 sn), Grup 3: 5 mL %0.5 fitik asit (60 sn), Grup 4: 5 mL %0.5 fitik asit (30 sn), Grup 5: Sonik ajitasyon ile 5 mL %17 EDTA (60 sn), Grup 6: Sonik ajitasyon ile 5 mL %17 EDTA (30 sn), Group 7: 5 mL %17 EDTA (60 sn), Grup 8: 5 mL %17 EDTA (30 sn).

Bulgular: Smear tabaka uzaklaştırma bakımından Grup 6 ve Grup 8’de en yüksek skorlar gözledi. Koronal ve orta üçlü bölgelerinde %0.5 fitik asit ile irrigasyon yapılan sonik ajitasyon uygulanan grupların (Grup 1 ve Grup 2) diğer gruplara kıyasla anlamlı derecede daha iyi smear tabaka kaldırdığı görüldü. EDTA ile final irrigasyon yapılan gruplarda anlamlı derece daha az erozyon görüldü.

Sonuç: Final irrigasyonu olarak sonik ajitasyon ile %0.5 fitik asit solüsyonu umut verici sonuçlar göstermiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Fitik asit, Smear tabakası, Sonik ajitasyon, Şelasyon ajanları

Destekleyen Kurum

Bilimsel Araştırma Projesi (BAP)

Proje Numarası

03/2017-22

The Effects of Phytic Acid At The Different Time Intervals With Sonic Agitation on Smear Layer Removal and Erosion

Öz

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of 0.5% phytic acid at the different time intervals with sonic agitation on smear layer removal and erosion.

Material and Methods: Groups are as follows; Group 1: 5 mL 0.5% phytic acid with sonic agitation (60 s), Group 2: 5 mL 0.5% phytic acid with sonic agitation (30 s), Group 3: 5 mL 0.5% phytic acid (60 s), Group 4: 5 mL 0.5% phytic acid (30 s), Group 5: 5 mL 17% EDTA with sonic agitation (60 s), Group 6: 5 mL 17% EDTA with sonic agitation (30 s), Group 7: 5 mL 17% EDTA (60 s), Group 8: 5 mL 17% EDTA (30 s).

Results: Concerning smear removal, Group 6 and Group 8 had higher scores in all region. In the coronal and middle region irrigated with 0.5% phytic acid with sonic agitation groups (Group 1 and Group 2) removed significantly more smear layer than other groups. In EDTA groups had significantly lower erosion scores than phytic acid groups.

Conclusion: The use of 0.5% phytic acid with sonic agitation as final irrigation solution seems promising.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Erosion, Smear layer, Sonic agitation, Phytic acid

Proje Numarası

03/2017-22

Kaynakça

• 1. Rosenfeld EF, James GA, Burch BS. Vital pulp tissue response to sodium hypochlorite. J Endod 1978;4:140-6.
• 2. McComb D, Smith DC, Beagrie GS. The results of in vivo endodontic chemomechanical instrumentation--a scanning electron microscopic study. J Br Endod Soc 1976;9:11-8.
• 3. Tardivo D, Pommel L, La Scola B, About I, Camps J. Antibacterial efficiency of passive ultrasonic versus sonic irrigation. Ultrasonic root canal irrigation. Odontostomatol Trop 2010;33:29-35.
• 4. Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Wang Z, Gao Y. Irrigation in endodontics. Br Dent J 2014;216:299-303.
• 5. Ari H, Erdemir A, Belli S. Evaluation of the Effect of Endodontic Irrigation Solutions on the Microhardness and the Roughness of Root Canal Dentin. J Endod 2004;30:792-5.
• 6. Hülsmann M, Heckendorff M, Lennon A. Chelating agents in root canal treatment: mode of action and indications for their use. Int Endod J 2003;36:810-30.
• 7. Oatway L, Vasanthan T, Helm JH. Phytic Acid. Food Rev Int 2001;17:419-31.
• 8. Xu Q, Kanthasamy AG, Reddy MB. Neuroprotective effect of the natural iron chelator, phytic acid in a cell culture model of Parkinson’s disease. Toxicology 2008;245:101-8.
• 9. Nassar M, Hiraishi N, Tamura Y, Otsuki M, Aoki K, Tagami J. Phytic acid: an alternative root canal chelating agent. J Endod 2015;41:242-7.
• 10. Desai P, Himel V. Comparative safety of various intracanal irrigation systems. J Endod 2009;35:545-9.
• 11. Waplington M, Lumley PJ, Walmsley AD. Sonic instruments in root canal therapy. Dent Update 1995;22:339-42.
• 12. Ruddle CJ. Hydrodynamic disinfection: tsunami endodontics.Dent Today 2007;26:110.112,114-7.
• 13. Caron G, Nham K, Bronnec F, Machtou P. Effectiveness of different final irrigant activation protocols on smear layer removal in curved canals. J Endod 2010;36:1361-6.
• 14. Mancini M, Armellin E, Casaglia A, Cerroni L, Cianconi L. A comparative study of smear layer removal and erosion in apical intraradicular dentine with three irrigating solutions: a scanning electron microscopy evaluation. J Endod 2009;35:900-3.
• 15. De Gregorio C, Estevez R, Cisneros R, Heilborn C, Cohenca N. Effect of EDTA, sonic, and ultrasonic activation on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into simulated lateral canals: an in vitro study. J Endod 2009;35:891-5.
• 16. Harrison JW. Irrigation of the root canal system. Dent Clin North Am 1984;28:797-808.
• 17. Niu W, Yoshioka T, Kobayashi C, Suda H. A scanning electron microscopic study of dentinal erosion by final irrigation with EDTA and NaOCl solutions. Int Endod J 2002;35:934-9.
• 18. Stojicic S, Shen Y, Qian W, Johnson B, Haapasalo M. Antibacterial and smear layer removal ability of a novel irrigant, QMiX. Int Endod J 2012;45:363-71.
• 19. Calt S, Serper A. Time-dependent effects of EDTA on dentin structures. J Endod 2002;28:17-9.
• 20. Yamada RS, Armas A, Goldman M, Lin PS. A scanning electron microscopic comparison of a high volume final flush with several irrigating solutions: Part 3. J Endod 1983;9:137-42.
• 21. Ballal NV, Kandian S, Mala K, Bhat KS, Acharya S. Comparison of the Efficacy of Maleic Acid and Ethylenediaminetetraacetic Acid in Smear Layer Removal from Instrumented Human Root Canal: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study. J Endod 2009;35:1573-6.
• 22. Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L, Armellin E, Conte G, Cianconi L. Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, EndoVac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): field emission scanning electron microscopic evaluation in an in vitro study. J Endod 2013;39:1456-60.
• 23. Sen BH, Wesselink PR, Türkün M. The smear layer: a phenomenon in root canal therapy. Int Endod J 1995;28:141-8.
• 24.Trowbridge JH. On a Technique for Measurement of Turbulent Shear Stress in the Presence of Surface Waves. J Atmospheric Ocean Technol 1998;15:290-8.
• 25. Sayin TC, Serper A, Cehreli ZC, Kalayci S. Calcium loss from root canal dentin following EDTA, EGTA, EDTAC, and tetracycline-HCl treatment with or without subsequent NaOCl irrigation. J Endod 2007;33:581-4.
• 26. Saito K, Webb TD, Imamura GM, Goodell GG. Effect of shortened irrigation times with 17% ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid on smear layer removal after rotary canal instrumentation. J Endod 2008;34:1011-4.
• 27. Kalçay M, Tinaz AC. Effects of different concentrations of phytic acid on smear layer removal and erosion. J Dent Fac Atatürk Univ 2018;28:341-7.