KOMBINE IRRIGASYON SOLÜSYONLARININ ELEKTRIKSEL ILETKENLIĞININ KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 32 Sayı: 2, 148 - 151, 17.04.2022

Ayşin Dumani Şehnaz Yılmaz Oğuz Yoldaş Güray Kılınççeker

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.1037890

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı kanal tedavisi sırasında kullanılan farklı irrigasyon solüsyonlarının elektriksel iletkenliğinin ölçülmesidir.
Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada Qmix, MTAD, Serum fizyolojik, Sodyum hipoklorit (NaOCl; %1, 2,5, 5), Etilen diamin tetra asetik asit (EDTA; %5,17) ve Klorheksidin (CHX) solüsyonlarının elektriksel iletkenliği ölçüldü. Bu solüsyonların elektrik iletkenliğini ölçmek için, elektriksel iletkenlik ölçme cihazı (Meinsberg Conductiviy Meter LF39, FabrikstraBe 69,OT Meinsberg, D-04720 ziegra-Knobelsdorf) kullanıldı. Her bir solüsyondan 10 adet olacak şekilde 100 ml cam beher kaplarının yarısına kadar irrigasyon solüsyonu dolduruldu ve Meinsberg iletkenlik metresi LF39’un elektrot probu bu solüsyonlara daldırıldı. Her irrigasyon solüsyonundan sonra elektrot probu de-iyonize suyla yıkandı ve test cihazı her seferinde kalibre edildi. Ölçümler her irrigasyon solüsyonu için on kez tekrarlandı. İletkenlik ölçümleri verisi dağılımı normal dağılım varsayımını karşılamadığı için non-parametrik Kruskal-Wallis testi kullanılarak yapıldı. İstatistik değerlendirme IBM SPSS istatistik yazılımı (sürüm 20.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, ABD) ile gerçekleştirildi.
Bulgular: Elektriksel iletkenlik ölçme cihazı ölçümleri kiloohm/santimetre’den microsiemens/santimetre’ye çevrildi. Elektriksel iletkenliğine göre sıralandığında %5 NaOCl> %2,5 NaOCl> QMix> %1 NaOCl> %5 EDTA> %17 EDTA> NaCl> MTAD> %2 CHX şeklinde bulundu. İstatistiksel olarak CHX solüsyonun elektriksel iletkenliği QMix, %2,5 NaOCl ve %5 NaOCl’den (P < ,05); MTAD solüsyonun %2,5 NaOCl ve %5 NaOCl’den (P < ,05); %17 EDTA solüsyonun %5 NaOCl’den düşük bulundu (P < ,05).
Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre NaOCl’in elektriksel iletkenliği QMix, MTAD ve CHX’den daha yüksek olduğu saptanmıştır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Elektriksel iletkenlik, MTAD, QMix, EDTA, NaOCl, CHX

Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the electrical conductivity of different irrigation solution used in root canal treatment.
Methods: In this study, electrical conductivity of Qmix, MTAD, Saline, Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl ;1, 2.5, 5%), Etylene daimine tetraacetic acid (EDTA; 5.17%) and Clorhexidine (CHX) was measured. For measuring of electrical conductivities of this irrigants, an electrical conductivity tester (Meinsberg Conductiviy Meter LF39, FabrikstraBe 69,OT Meinsberg, D-04720 ziegra-Knobelsdorf) was used. After preparation of 10 sample for each solution, 100 mL glassbeakers were half-filled with each irrigant, and the electrode probe was immersed. In each step, electrode was washed with copious de-ionized water and tester was calibrated with appropriate range. Measurements were repated ten times for each irrigant. The nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was used when variables were not normally distributed (P < .05). Statistical evaluation was executed with IBM SPSS Statistics software (version 20.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
Results: Data were obtained in kiloohm/centimeter and calculated to microsiemens/centimeter. According to electrical conductivity; 5% NaOCl> 2.5% NaOCl> QMix> 1% NaOCl> 5% EDTA> 17% EDTA> NaCl> MTAD> 2% CHX. Statistically electrical conductivity of CHX was lower than QMix, 2.5% NaOCl, 5% NaOCl; MTAD was lower than 2.5% NaOCl, 5% NaOCl; %17 EDTA was lower than 5% NaOCl (P < .05).
Conclusion: According to resultsof this study the electroconductivity of NaOCl was higher than QMix, MTAD and CHX.
Keywords: Electrical conductivity, MTAD, QMix, EDTA, NaOCl, CHX

Anahtar Kelimeler

Elektriksel iletkenlik, MTAD, QMix, EDTA, NaOCl, CHX

Kaynakça

• 1. Ricucci D. Apical limit of root canal instrumentation and obturation, part- 1; literature review. Int Endod J. 1998;31(6):384-393. [Crossref]
• 2. Seltzer S, Bender IB, Turkenkopf S. Factors affecting successful repair after root canal therapy. J Am Dent Assoc. 1963;67:651-662. [Crossref]
• 3. Kuttler Y. Microscopic investigation of root apices. J Am Dent Assoc. 1955;50(5):544-552. [Crossref]
• 4. Herrera M, Abalos C, Planas AJ, Llamas R. Influence of apical conistriction diameter on Root ZX Apex locator precision. J Endod. 2007;33(8):995-998. [Crossref]
• 5. Ding J, Gutmann JL, Fan B, Lu Y, Chen H. Investigation of apex locators and related morphological factors. J Endod. 2010;36(8):1399-1403. [Crossref]
• 6. ElAyouti A, Löst C. A simple mounting model for consistent determination of the accuracy and repeatability of apex locators. Int Endod J. 2006;39(2):108-112. [Crossref]
• 7. Venturi M, Breschi L. A comparison between two electronic apex locators: an in vivo investigation. Int Endod J. 2005;38(1):36-45. [Crossref]
• 8. Joesten MD, Hogg JL, Castellion ME. The world of chemistry: essentials. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks Cole; 2004. p. 461.
• 9. Tanomaru-Filho M, Leanardo MR, Silva LA, Annibal FF, Faccioli LH. Inflammatory response to different endodontic irrigating solutions. Int Endod J. 2012;38:13951398.
• 10. Vahdaty A, Pitt Ford TR, Wilson RF. Efficacy of chlorhexidine in disinfecting dentinal tubules in vitro. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1993;9(6):243-248. [Crossref]
• 11. Peters CA, Barbakow F. Effect of irrigation on debris and smear layer on canal walls prepared by two rotary techniques: A scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2000;25(1):6-10. [Crossref]
• 12. Dai L, Khechen K, Khan S, et al. The effect of QMix, an experimental antibacterial root canal irrigant, on removal of canal wall smear layer and debris. J Endod. 2011;37(1):80-84. [Crossref]
• 13. Torabinejad M, Shabahang S, Aprecio R, Kettering JD. The antimicrobial effect of MTAD: An in vitro investigation. J Endod. 2003;29(6):400-403. [Crossref]
• 14. Shin HS, Yang WK, Kim MR, et al. Accuracy of Root ZX in teeth with simulated root perforation in the presence of gel or liquid type endodontic irrigant. Restor Dent Endod. 2012;37(3):149-154. [Crossref]
• 15. Stein TJ, Corcoran JF, Zillich RM. The influence of the major and minor foramen diameters on apical electronic probe measurements. J Endod. 1990;16(11):520-22. [Crossref]
• 16. Fouad A, Rivera EM, Krell KV. Accuracy of the Endex with variations in canal irrigants and foramen size. J Endod. 1993;19(2):63-67. [Crossref]
• 17. Abbott PV. Clinical evaluation of an electronic root canal measuring device. Aus Endod J. 1987;32(1):17-21. [Crossref]
• 18. Fouad AF, Krell KV. An in vitro comparison of five root canal length measuring instruments. J Endod. 1989;15(12):573-577. [Crossref]
• 19. Pallas-Areny R, Webster JG. AC instrumentation amplifier for bioimpedance measurements. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1993;40(8):830-833. [Crossref]
• 20. Soi S, Mohan S, Vinayak V, Kaur P. Electronic apex locators. J Dent Sci Oral Reh. 2013;24-27.
• 21. Fan W, Fan B, Gutmann JL, Bian Z, Fan MW. Evaluation of the accuracy of three electronic apex locators using glass tubules. Int Endod J. 2006;39(2):127-135. [Crossref]
• 22. Kobayashi C. Electronic canal length measurement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1995;79(2):226-231. [Crossref]
• 23. Li YH, Zhou Z, Zheng YQ, et al. Accuracy of three different electronic apex locators in determination of perforation with various conditions in vitro. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2011;29(3):272-275.
• 24. Kang JA, Kim SK. Accuracies of seven different apex locators under various conditions. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;106(4):57-62. [Crossref]
• 25. Altunbaş D, Kuştarcı A, Toyoğlu M. The influence of various ırrigants on the accuracy of 2 electronic apex locators in locating simulated root perforations. J Endod. 2017;43(3):439-442. [Crossref]
• 26. Bilaiya S, Patni PM, Jain P, Pandey SH, Raghuwanshi S, Bagulkar B. Comparative evaluation of accuracy of Ipex, Root Zx Mini, and Epex Pro apex locators in teeth with artificially created root perforations in presence of various intracanal irrigants. Eur Endod J. 2020;5(1):6-9. [Crossref]
• 27. Jenkins JA, Walker WA, Schindler WG, Flores CM. An in vitro evaluation of the accuracy of the Root ZX in the presence of various irrigants. J Endod. 2001;27(3):209-211. [Crossref]
• 28. Baruah Q, Sinha N, Singh B, Reddy PN, Baruah K, Augustine V. Comparative evaluation of accuracy of two electronic apex locators in the presence of contemporary irrigants: An in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2018;8(4):349-353. [Crossref]
• 29. Tınaz A.C, Kıvanç B, Çınar S, Tazegül S. In vitro comparison of two new generation apex locators. Curr Res Dent Sci. 2006;16(1):30-33.
• 30. Kaufman AY, Keila S, Yoshpe M. Accuracy of a new apex locator: An in vitro study. Int Endod J. 2002;35(2):186-192. [Crossref]
• 31. Prasad AB, Harshit S, Aastha SA, Deepak R. An in vitro evaluation of the accuracy of two electronic apex locators to determine working length in the presence of various ırrigants. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2016;26(5):457-462. [Crossref]
• 32. Pommer O, Stamm O, Attin T. Influence of the canal contents on the electrical assisted determination of the length of root canals. J Endod. 2002;28(2):83-85. [Crossref]
• 33. Sübay RK, Kara Ö, Sübay MO. Comparison of four electronic root canal length measurement devices. Acta Odontol Scand. 2017;75(5):325-331. [Crossref]