Effects of Different Concentrations of Phytic Acid on Smear Layer Removal and Erosion

Abstract

Aim:The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the effects of different concentrations of phytic acid on smear layer removal and erosion. Materials and Methods: Sixty freshly extracted, single-rooted, mandibular second premolar teeth with relatively similar dimensions and lengths were selected for this study. All of the teeth were instrumented with Protaper Universal files, using the crown-down technique up to size 30, 0.06 taper (F3). Groups are as follows; Group 1 (Control): 5 mL distilled water (1 min), Group 2: 5 mL 17% EDTA (1 min), Group 3: 5 mL 1% phytic acid (1 min), Group 4: 5 mL 0.5% phytic acid (1 min). Root canals were irrigated between each file with 2 ml, 5% NaOCl. Photomicrographs were taken at x2000 magnification, from the coronal, middle and apical third of each specimen for evaluation. Results: The 1% phytic acid solution proved to be more effective than the conventional 17% EDTA solution even when the concentration was reduced by 50%. Seventeen percent EDTA solution was effective in the removal of the smear layer at the coronal and middle thirds of the root canal. However, the solution was not as effective at the apical third of the root canal. While specimens treated with the 1% phytic acid caused the highest erosion, the 0.5% phytic acid and 17% EDTA followed. Conclusions: There is very little research to suggest that phytic acid can be used as an alternate root canal chelating agent. Therefore, more research needs to be conducted to be able to evaluate the effects of phytic acid solution on the root canal dentine. ÖZAmaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı tek köklü dişlerde son irrigasyon ajanı olarak farklı konsantrasyonlarda kullanılan fitik asit solüsyonlarının smear tabakasını uzaklaştırılma etkinliğinin, erozyon üzerindeki etkilerinin diğer irrigasyon solüsyonları ile karşılaştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Altmış adet, tek köklü insan alt çene ikinci premolar dişler çalışmada kullanılmıştır. Dişler döner alet yardımıyla genişletildi. Ni-Ti Protaper Universal döner eğeleri ile üretici firma talimatlarına göre sırasıyla SX, S1, S2, F1, F2 ve F3 enstrumanlar kullanılarak genişletildi. Her deney grubunda farklı solüsyonlar son irrigasyon ajanı olarak kullanıldı. Gruplar; Grup 1 (Kontrol): 5 mL distile su (1 dk), Grup 2: 5 mL 17% EDTA (1 dk), Grup 3: 5 mL 1% fitik asit (1 dk), Grup 4: 5 mL 0.5% fitik asit (1 dk). Smear tabaka ve erozyon değerlendirmesi, köklerden alınan vertikal kesitlerin, taramalı elektron mikroskobu altında, x2000 büyütmede, köklerin koronal, orta ve apikal üçlüsünden alınan görüntüler kullanılarak yapıldı. Bulgular:Çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre %1 fitik asit solüsyonu, solüsyonun konsantrasyonu yarı yarıya azaltılsa bile (%0,5 fitik asit), konvansiyonel şelasyon ajanı %17 EDTA'dan smear tabakasını uzaklaştırma kabiliyeti açısından daha etkilidir. %17 EDTA solüsyonu, koronal ve orta üçlü seviyelerinde etkili bir şekilde smear tabakasını uzaklaştırırken, apikal üçlü seviyesinde aynı etkiyi gösterememiştir. Solüsyonun pH'sının bu kadar asidik olması ve yüksek şelasyon yeteneği ol...

Erosive potential of 1% Phytic Acid on radicular dentine at different time intervals

“…One study reported more erosion with 0.5 and 1% IP6 when used for 1 minute which is conflicting with our findings (25). The difference in the results can be attributed to the irrigation regime followed by that study which used sodium hypochlorite as final rinse after thoroughly rinsing the canal with the chelator.…”

“…The results differ from the findings of Nassar et al (11) but are in accordance with Jagzap et al (26) in terms of smear layer removal. In addition, when erosion was evaluated, we found conflicting results with the findings of Kalcay and Tinaz (25).…”

“…The use of sodium hypochlorite after EDTA as a final rinse was reported to cause erosion of dentine irrespective of the type of chelator used (7). In addition, that study (25) used an open system as opposed to a closed root canal system in our study which may partly explain the difference in findings.…”

“…Literature on erosive potential and smear removal ability of 1% IP6 was reported with conflicting results. Kalçay found more erosion of dentine with 1% IP6 as compared to 17% EDTA (25). Nassar et al reported equal or better smear removal of IP6 as compared to 17% EDTA (11).…”