Effect of chitosan on sealer penetration into the dentinal tubules

Kesim, Bertan; Ak, Burak; Üstün, Yakup; Delikan, Ebru; Güngör, Ahmet

doi:10.4103/njcp.njcp_127_18

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two independent reviewers read to the title of them and removed 138 irrelevant studies. The reviewers read the abstract of the remaining studies and excluded 12 studies because of dentin microhardness, sealer dentin tubules penetration (Antunes et al, 2019; Aydin et al, 2016; Aydın et al, 2019; Bayram et al, 2017; Choudhury et al, 2020; Gokturk & Ozkocak, 2022; Gyulbenkiyan et al, 2020; Kesim et al, 2018; Prasanthi et al, 2019; Ratih, Sari, et al, 2020), has not EDTA group (Silva et al, 2012), and lack of a SEM study (Mathew et al, 2017). Finally, 15 studies for the full‐text assessment were analyzed and only seven studies (Darrag, 2014; İlhan, 2019; Kamble et al, 2017; Kaur et al, 2020; Madhusudhana et al, 2015; Penumaka et al, 2019; Sari et al, 2018) were considered eligible.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The comparative of chitosan and chitosan nanoparticle versus ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid on the smear layer removal: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of in vitro study

İlhan,

Cakici,

Cakici

2023

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this systematic review of meta‐analysis was to compare the effectiveness of removing the smearing layer using EDTA versus Chitosan (Ch) and Chitosan nanoparticles (Ch‐NPs). A search was performed in four electronic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane). The included studies were assessed by two reviewers using Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal checklist for the quasi‐experimental studies. Outcomes obtained by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and conventional methods were presented as standardized mean differences alongside 95% confidence intervals. Seven investigations employed 212 single‐root teeth. In the apical section (p = .317, 95% CI = −0.820 to 0.266, Tau2 = 0.387), middle segment (p = .914, 95% CI = −1.019 to 0.912, Tau2 = 1.027), and coronal segment (p = .277, 95% CI = −1.008 to 0.289, Tau2 = 0.378). This meta‐analysis found no difference between Ch, Ch‐NPs, and EDTA in removing the smear layer in the three segments. This systematic review is designed to show evidence related to the PICO question, in which our outcome is smear layer removal and not the clinical success of such a treatment.Research Highlights The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of chitosan and chitosan nanoparticles with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in removing the smear layer, a layer of debris and organic material on the tooth surface, through a systematic review and meta‐analysis. The removal of the smear layer is crucial for successful dental treatments, as it enhances the adhesion of restorative materials and improves the penetration of antimicrobial agents into dentinal tubules. The researchers conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis, searching various databases of electron microscopy results for relevant in vitro studies comparing the effects of chitosan or chitosan nanoparticles with EDTA on smear layer removal. The results encourage further exploration of chitosan and chitosan nanoparticles for clinical use in dentistry, while considering their specific applications and long‐term effects.

show abstract