The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Assessment of the Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Three Different Agents on Periodontally Compromised Tooth: An In Vitro Study

Dhirendra Kumar Singh, BS Harsha Raj, Crystal Runa Soans, Akshitha Elango, Fazil A Nasyam, Debasish Mishra

Keywords : Chemical agents, Periodontally compromised tooth, Scaling and root planing, Smear layer

Citation Information : Singh DK, Raj BH, Soans CR, Elango A, Nasyam FA, Mishra D. Assessment of the Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Three Different Agents on Periodontally Compromised Tooth: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (2):156-159.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3618

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-03-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the smear layer removal efficacy of three various agents on periodontally compromised tooth. Materials and methods: The current study included 75 molar teeth that were extracted due to periodontal disease. After that, 25 samples were randomly assigned using a simple random technique to the three different agent groups, group A: Scaling and root planing (SRP) and application of SofScale agent, group B: SRP and application of QMix agent, group C: SRP and application of MTAD agent. Using a diamond circular saw, the treated portions were divided into horizontal and vertical halves. All samples were viewed under Scanning Electron Microscope. Every tooth was focused at the coronal third, middle third, and apical third portion with a magnification of 1000×. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed. Results: The smear layer removal efficacy was more in the QMix agent (3.06 ± 0.04) group followed by MTAD agent (3.28 ± 0.09) and SofScale agent (4.14 ± 0.10) group on the root surface. On intra group comparison, there was a statistically significant difference found in all the intra group agents with all the three levels. On inter group evaluation, at coronal third, there was no significant difference found between the different agents. There was a significant difference found between the different agents at middle and coronal third. Conclusion: On conclusion, the current investigation found that, the root surfaces treated with QMix shown a greater ability to remove smear layers compared to tooth surfaces treated with MTAD and SofScale agent. Clinical significance: Conventional therapies such as SRP effectively eliminate calculus, plaque, and necrosed cementum; nevertheless, they leave behind a smear layer that could impede normal healing. In an effort to overcome this, root conditioning agents were applied on the root surface to remove the smear layer. The traditional root conditioning agents such as citric acid have certain disadvantages, though, such as an acidic pH that could harm the root surface. As a result, researchers have been looking for biocompatible root conditioning treatments that are more effective.

PDF Share
  1. Grisi DC, Theodoro LH, Sampaio JE, et al. Scanning electron microscopic analysis of the effect of Carisolv gel on periodontally compromised human root surfaces. Braz Dent J. 2006;17(2): 110–116. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402006000200005.
  2. Mariotti A. Efficacy of chemical root surface modifiers in the treatment of periodontal disease. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 2003;8(1):205–226. DOI: 10.1902/annals.2003.8.1.205.
  3. Rompen EH, Goffinet GH, Nusgens B. Human periodontal ligament fibroblast behavior on chemically conditioned dentine: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 1999;70(10):1144–1152. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1999.70.10.1144.
  4. Kancharla AK, Akilandan S, Prasad SSV, et al. Evaluation of effect of carisolv, EDTA-S and EDTA on periodontally diseased root surfaces: An in-vitro scanning electron microscopic study. J Clin Diagnostic Res, 2019;13(7):ZC25–ZC31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2019/40829.13002.
  5. Nawathe AA, Deshpande NC, Dandekar SA. A comparative scanning electron microscopic analysis of the effect of QMix® and SofScale™ as an adjunct to scaling and root planing on periodontally compromised root surfaces: An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2017;8(3):427–432. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_539_17.
  6. Torabinejad M, Khademi AA, Babagoli J, et al. A new solution for the removal of the smear layer. J Endod 2003;29(30):170–175. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200303000-00002.
  7. Belal MH, Watanabe H, Ichinose S, et al. Effect of Er:YAG laser combined with rhPDGF-BB on attachment of cultured fibroblasts to periodontally involved root surfaces. J Periodontol 2007;78(7): 1329–1341. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2007.060440.
  8. Sampaio JEC, Abi RSG, Pilatti GL, et al. Effectiveness of EDTA and EDTA-T brushing on the removal of root surface smear layer. Pesqui Odontol Bras 2003;17(4):319–325. DOI: 10.1590/s1517-74912003000400005.
  9. Blomlöf J, Lindskog S. Root surface texture and early cell and tissue colonization after different etching modalities. Eur J Oral Sci 1995;103(1):17–24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1995.tb00005.x.
  10. Froum S, Lemler J, Horowitz R, et al. The use of enamel matrix derivative in the treatment of periodontal osseous defects: A clinical decision tree based on biologic principles of regeneration. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2001;21:437–449. PMID: 11693237.
  11. Isik AG, Tarim B, Hafez AA, et al. A comparative scanning electron microscopic study on the characteristics of demineralized dentin root surface using different tetracycline HCl concentrations and application times. J Periodontol 2000;71:(2)219–225. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2000.71.2.219.
  12. Shewale A, Gattani D. A novel root biomodifier containing chlorhexidine and EDTA – An ESEM analysis. Int J Res 2015;7: 19143–19146. Available from: https://www.journalcra.com/article/novel-root-biomodifier-containing-chlorhxidine-and-edta%E2%80%93-esem-analysis.
  13. Dai L, Khenchen 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.10.004.
  14. Stojicic S, Shen Y, Qian W, et al. Antibacterial and smear layer removal ability of a novel irrigant, QMix. Int Endod J 2012;45(4): 363–371. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01985.x.
  15. Calt S, Serper A. Time-dependent effects of EDTA on dentin structures. J Endod 2002;28(1):17–19. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200201000-00004.
  16. Scelza MF, Pierro V, Scelza P, et al. Effect of three different time periods of irrigation with EDTA-T, EDTA and citric acid on smear layer removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;98(4):499–503. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.03.027.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.