1982
DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(82)80354-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In vivo evaluation of chlorhexidine gluconate solution and sodium hypochlorite solution as root canal irrigants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
57
1
18

Year Published

2007
2007
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 105 publications
(76 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
57
1
18
Order By: Relevance
“…7,8 In vivo and ex vivo studies comparing the antimicrobial effectiveness of chlorhexidine and NaOCl when used as irrigants during chemomechanical preparation have demonstrated conflicting results. Some studies have revealed that chlorhexidine is more effective, [9][10][11] others have reported that NaOCl is more effective, 12,13 whereas others have shown no significant difference between these 2 substances. 14,15 In vitro studies have also been inconsistent in their findings, with NaOCl more effective, [16][17][18] chlorhexidine more effective, 8 or no significant difference between the two.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…7,8 In vivo and ex vivo studies comparing the antimicrobial effectiveness of chlorhexidine and NaOCl when used as irrigants during chemomechanical preparation have demonstrated conflicting results. Some studies have revealed that chlorhexidine is more effective, [9][10][11] others have reported that NaOCl is more effective, 12,13 whereas others have shown no significant difference between these 2 substances. 14,15 In vitro studies have also been inconsistent in their findings, with NaOCl more effective, [16][17][18] chlorhexidine more effective, 8 or no significant difference between the two.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several investigators have suggested the use of chlorhexidine gluconate as an equally valuable root canal irrigant. It has ability to be absorbed and released by dental tissues, would disinfect the tissues and then maintain a root canal devoid of microorganisms by sustained release of CHX gluconate into the root canals 20) . CHX gluconate is a cationic bisguanide which combines to the cell wall of the microorganism and causes leakage of intra cellular components.…”
Section: ⅳ Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite its usefulness as a final irrigant, chlorhexidine cannot be advocated as the main irrigant in standard endodontic cases, because: (a) chlorhexidine is unable to dissolve necrotic tissue remnants (Naenni et al, 2004), and (b) chlorhexidine is less effective on Gram-negative than on Gram-positive bacteria (Hennessey,1973). In a randomized clinical trial on the reduction of intracanal microbiota by either 2.5% NaOCl or 0.2% chlorhexidine irrigation, it was found that hypochlorite was significantly more efficient than chlorhexidine in obtaining negative cultures (Ringel, 1982). Most important CHX disadvantage is its inability of to dissolve necrotic tissue remnants and chemically clean the canal system.…”
Section: Chlorhexidinementioning
confidence: 99%