2007Australian Endodontic JournalRequires access

Evaluation of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) solution and gel for smear layer removal*

Sidney Ricardo Dotto, Rosana Maria Coelho Travassos, Elias Pandonor Motcy de Oliveira, Manoel Eduardo de Lima Machado, J. L. S Martins

Open publisher page 27 citations

Abstract

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the efficacy of 24% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) gel and 17% EDTA solution in cleaning dentine walls after root canal instrumentation. Thirty human canine teeth were divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. In Group 1, 1% sodium hypochlorite was used as the irrigating solution; in Group 2, 1% sodium hypochlorite was used with 17% EDTA solution; and in Group 3, 1% sodium hypochlorite was used with 24% EDTA gel. The presence of a smear layer was analysed after instrumentation using scanning electron microscopy. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a statistical difference (P < 0.05) between Groups 1 and 2, and also between Groups 1 and 3. No difference was observed between Groups 2 and 3 (P > 0.05). The results indicate that 1% sodium hypochlorite alone does not remove the smear layer and that there was no statistical difference between EDTA gel and EDTA solution in smear layer removal.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the efficacy of 24% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) gel and 17% EDTA solution in cleaning dentine walls after root canal instrumentation. Thirty human canine teeth were divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. In Group 1, 1% sodium hypochlorite was used as the irrigating solution; in Group 2, 1% sodium hypochlorite was used with 17% EDTA solution; and in Group 3, 1% sodium hypochlorite was used with 24% EDTA gel. The presence of a smear layer was analysed after instrumentation using scanning electron microscopy. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a statistical difference (P < 0.05) between Groups 1 and 2, and also between Groups 1 and 3. No difference was observed between Groups 2 and 3 (P > 0.05). The results indicate that 1% sodium hypochlorite alone does not remove the smear layer and that there was no statistical difference between EDTA gel and EDTA solution in smear layer removal.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 27 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the efficacy of 24% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) gel and 17% EDTA solution in cleaning dentine walls after root canal instrumentation. Thirty human canine teeth were divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. In Group 1, 1% sodium hypochlorite was used as the irrigating solution; in Group 2, 1% sodium hypochlorite was used with 17% EDTA solution; and in Group 3, 1% sodium hypochlorite was used with 24% EDTA gel. The presence of a smear layer was analysed after instrumentation using scanning electron microscopy. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a statistical difference (P < 0.05) between Groups 1 and 2, and also between Groups 1 and 3. No difference was observed between Groups 2 and 3 (P > 0.05). The results indicate that 1% sodium hypochlorite alone does not remove the smear layer and that there was no statistical difference between EDTA gel and EDTA solution in smear layer removal.

Key concepts: Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, Smear layer, Layer (electronics), Chelation, Edetic Acid, Nuclear chemistry, Chemistry, Materials science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Evaluation of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) solution and gel for smear layer removal* — Research Paper | ScholarLens