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 23 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

An In Vitro Evaluation of the Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Three Different Chemical Decalcifying Agents on Periodontally Compromised Root Surfaces: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Study

PS Prasanth, Mohammed Azamulla

Keywords : Periodontally compromised teeth, Scaling and root planing, Scanning electron microscopy, Smear layer

Citation Information : Prasanth P, Azamulla M. An In Vitro Evaluation of the Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Three Different Chemical Decalcifying Agents on Periodontally Compromised Root Surfaces: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (5):527-531.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3297

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 10-08-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: Aim of the current research was to assess the smear layer removal efficacy of SofScale, Carisolv gel, and QMix chemical decalcifying substances on periodontally weakened radicular surfaces. Materials and methods: The sample size constituted 60 recently extracted periodontally compromised teeth having a poor prognosis. The samples were allocated at random to one of the following three groups (20 in each): Group I: Scaling and root planing (SRP) with SofScale, Group II: SRP with Carisolv gel, and group III: SRP with QMix. The surfaces thus subjected to treatment were washed with 20 mL of saline and the crown portion was detached at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Following this, samples were horizontally and vertically segmented employing a diamond circular disk with 150–200 μm thickness. Every sample segment was subjected to rinsing in normal saline and positioned in 2.5% glutaraldehyde solution in 0.1 M phosphate buffer at a pH of 7.4 for at least 24 hours. Samples were evaluated in a scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at a magnification of 2000×, and photomicrographs were assessed to establish the degree of radicular biomodification by eliminating the smear layer. Results: QMix group showed the highest smear layer elimination at 3.56 ± 0.13 in pursuit by Carisolv gel at 3.64 ± 0.11 and SofScale group with 4.68 ± 0.08. The differences amid the groups were statistically significant with p <0.001. On multiple contrast assessments of smear layer elimination effectiveness of the dissimilar chemical decalcifying substances employing Tukey's HSD, statistically significant differences were noted between group I and group II, as well as group I and group III (p <0.001). However, there were no significant differences between group II and group III (p >0.001). Conclusion: In conclusion, QMix was noted to have a superior smear layer elimination capacity in comparison with the radicular surfaces conditioned with Carisolv and SofScale. Clinical significance: Modifying the surface of teeth by radicular conditioning causes the enhanced attachment of connective tissues coupled with progression in the final aim of reconstructive periodontal therapy. The utility of chemical substances along with physical management characterizes the probability of reduced trauma during treatment, avoiding the sacrifice of radicular portions of teeth.

PDF Share
  1. Houshmand B, Ghandi M, Nekoofar MH, et al. SEM analysis of MTAD efficacy for smear layer removal from periodontally affected root surfaces. J Dent (Tehran) 2011;8(4):157–164. PMID: 22509454.
  2. Avirdsson A, Liedberg B, Möller K, et al. Chemical and topographical analyses of dentin surfaces after CarisolvTM treatment. J Dent 2002,30(2–3):67–75. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(01)00051-3.
  3. Grisi DG, Theodoro LH, Sampaio JEC, et al. Scanning electron microscopic analysis of the effect of CarisolvTM gel on periodontally compromised human root surfaces. Braz Dent J 2006;17(2):110–116. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402006000200005.
  4. 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.
  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. Shewale A, Gattani D. A novel root biomodifier containing chlorhexidine and EDTA–an ESEM analysis. Int J Curr Res 2015;7(8):19143–19146. https://www.journalcra.com/sites/default/files/issue-pdf/10069.pdf.
  7. Vandana KL, Sadanand K, Cobb CM, et al. Effects of tetracycline, EDTA and citric acid application on fluorosed dentin and cementum surfaces: an in vitro study. Open Corrosion J 2009;(2):88–95.https://benthamopen.com › TOCORRJ-2-88.
  8. 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(5):437–449. PMID: 11693237.
  9. 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;37:80–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.10.004.
  10. 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.
  11. Sterrett JD, Murphy HJ. Citric acid demineralization of cementum and dentin: the effect of application pressure. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22(6):434–441. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb00174.x.
  12. Verma SJ, Gohil MH. Scanning electron microscopy study to analyze the morphological characteristics of root surfaces after application of Carisolv gel in association with scaling and root planing: in vitro study. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012;16(3):329–332. DOI: 10.4103/0972-124X.100906.
  13. Banerjee A, Kidd EA, Watson TF. Scanning electron microscopic observations of human dentin after mechanical caries excavation. J Dent 2000;28(3):179–186. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00064-0.
  14. Yazici AR, Özgünaltay G, Dayangaç B. A scanning electron microscopic study of different caries removal techniques on human dentin. Oper Dent 2002;27(4):360–366. PMID: 12120773.
  15. Cederlund A, Lindskog S, Blömlof J. Effect of chemo-mechanical caries removal system (CarisolvTM) on dentin topography of non-carious dentin. Acta Odontol Scand 1999;57(4):185–189. DOI: 10.1080/000163599428751.
  16. Singh S, Uppoor A, Nayak D. A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of manual, magnetostrictive and piezoelectric ultrasonic instruments–an in vitro profilometric and SEM study. J Appl Oral Sci 2012;20(1):21–26. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572012000100005.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.