A Review on Root Canal Irrigation Solutions in Endodontics

Document Type : Review Article

Authors

1 Iranian Center for Endodontic Research (ICER), Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran and Iranian National Elite Foundation, Tehran, Iran

2 General Dental Practitioner, Hamedan, Iran

3 Department of Conservative Dentistry, Showa University Dental Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

4 School of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Università degli Studi di Torino; and Private Practice, Crotone, Italy

5 Baylor College of Dentistry, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Dallas, Texas, USA

6 Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine (ZMK Bern), University of Bern, Switzerland

7 Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Medicine, University of Nigeria, Enugu State, Nigeria

8 Department of Endodontics, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Introduction: This paper aims to review the different characteristics of root canal irrigants including sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), chlorhexidine (CHX), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), iodine potassium iodide (IKI), antibiotic-based irrigants, photo-activated disinfection, electrochemically activated water, and QMix. The literature on root canal irrigation solutions in the context of endodontics up to June 2020 was reviewed using PubMed and MEDLINE. NaOCl was identified as the most likely effective irrigation solution that could be used for endodontics. Its antimicrobial activity is at least comparable or even greater than that of other common irrigants. Tetraclean was also proposed to be more effective than CHX against endodontic microorganisms. In addition, Hypoclean was suggested as the most potent and effective irrigant against Candida albicans. Similarly, IKI was introduced as a successful irrigant in killing Candida albicans and Enterococcus faecalis. MTAD is also known to be effective in smear layer removal as well as against the growth of Enterococcus faecalis. EDTA is also considered to have limited antimicrobial activity.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

Full Text

Many human and animal experiments have demonstrated the crucial role of microorganisms in the production of pulpo-periapical diseases (1-3). In vitro and clinical records have suggested that mechanical instrumentation of the canal does not debride all areas of the canal walls (4) and hence it seems impossible that microorganisms can be completely eliminated from the canal by mechanical preparation solely (5). Consequently, different irrigation techniques to eliminate and/or destroy microorganisms should be considered essential (6). Every dentist ought to be informed of irrigation solutions, their advantages, and their side effects.

The present review will discuss different aspects of some root canal irrigants such as sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), chlorhexidine (CHX), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), iodine potassium iodide (IKI), antibiotic irrigants, and QMix based on the existing literature guidelines.

 

Search Strategy

The literature on root canal irrigation solutions in the context of endodontics up to June 2020 was reviewed using PubMed and MEDLINE.

NaOCl

Mechanism of Action

NaOCl can function as a fat solvent that converts them into glycerol and fatty acids, thus decreasing the surface tension of the remaining solution (7). NaOCl can neutralize amino acids by a neutralization reaction and hence releasing salt and water. Hydroxyl ion release decreases pH. Because of the near interaction between NaOCl and organic tissues, hypochloric acid can perform as a solvent and generates chlorine, which can build chloramines combined with the amino protein group. Hypochlorite ions and hypochloric acid could trigger hydrolysis and degradation of the amino acids (8).

Antibacterial Activity

An in vivo analysis, Bystrom and Sundqvist (9) found that 12 out of 15 root canals were bacteria-free at the fifth examination when 0.5% of hypochlorite had been used. By contrast, in the saline group, 8 out of 15 root canals were bacteria-free. Siqueira et al. (10) suggested that 4% NaOCl would display substantial efficacy in comparing the saline solution in disinfecting the Enterococcus faecalis contaminated root canal. 5.25% NaOCl was more successful against Enterococcus faecalis than its lower concentrations (11). Ercan et al. (12) suggested that the microorganisms were greatly decreased using 5.25% NaOCl.

Antifungal Activity

Overall, the prevalence of fungi has been estimated to be 1-17% in contaminated canals (13, 14). Implementing cylindrical dentine tubes, Sen et al. (15) demonstrated that antifungal activity of NaOCl begins after 30 minutes in the absence of a smear layer. Another study by Waltimo et al. (16) revealed that NaOCl is able to destroy all Candida albicans in just 30 seconds at a concentration of 0.5% and 5%. Furthermore, Ferguson et al. (17) found that NaOCl even with substantial dilution was successful against Candida albicans. An analysis found that 6% NaOCl antifungal function was higher than 17% EDTA (18). Radcliffe et al. (19) found that, after 10 seconds, various NaOCl concentrations (0.5%, 1%, 2.5%, and 5.25%) reduced colony formation of Candida albicans below the detection level. Similarly, Ayhan et al. (20) had the same results.

 

Antibiofilm Activity

Biofilm microorganisms can have a 2-1000 times higher tolerance than planktonic form (21). A recent research found that 2.25% NaOCl is more successful against monoculture biofilms than other irrigants (22). Clegg et al. (23) found that 6% NaOCl has been the only irrigant with the potential to make the bacteria inviolable as well as physically eliminating the biofilm. Dunavant et al. (24) suggested that both 1% and 6% NaOCl is more successful in eliminating Enterococcus faecalis biofilm as opposed to other irrigants. Moreover, Giardino et al. (25) indicated that 5.25% NaOCl could destroy the biofilm at any time.

Tissue Solubility

Grossman (26) claimed that NaOCl would degrade the pulp tissue within 20 minutes to 2 hours by concentration at 5%. Moreover, Moorer and Naenni et al. (27) reported a sufficient potential of 1% NaOCl for tissue destruction. Clarkson et al. (28) reported that higher NaOCl concentrations produced quicker tissue dissolution, although a new study showed that applying a surfactant to NaOCl did not improve the ability to dissolve the tissue (29).

Toxicity

In an in vitro research, Pashley et al. (30) found that 1:1000 isotonic NaOCl concentration in saline could cause complete hemolysis of red blood cells. Kozol et al. (31) found that the solution of Dakin (composed of 0.4% to 0.5% NaOCl and 4% boric acid) was harmful to neutrophilic chemotaxis and toxic to endothelial cells and to fibroblasts. Heggers et al. (32) found that 0.025% NaOCl had been perfectly harmless as it had a bactericidal activity without toxicity to the tissue, whereas Zhang et al. (33) demonstrated that toxicity of NaOCl may have been dosage-dependent. Barnhart et al. (34) also reported that cytotoxicity of NaOCl was considerably greater than that of calcium hydroxide and IKI.

Complications Faced when using NaOCl

Most complications of NaOCl usage appears to be NaOCl accident involving unintended injection of NaOCl over apical foramen leading to aggressive tissue reactions associated with extreme pain and swelling, and perhaps even secondary infection (35). In an in vitro investigation, Brown et al. (36) proposed that filling coronal access cavity by NaOCl and pushing it into the canal space throughout instrumentation could lead to considerably less extrusion of irrigation solutions from apical foramen compared to deep irrigant distribution through needles.

Activation of NaOCl using Ultrasonic

Ultrasound that is a sound energy with a frequency above 20 kHz appears to have cleaning properties in combination with NaOCl through cavitation. A further significant result is to drive the irrigant into inaccessible canal regions (37). Sjögren and Sundqvist (38) found that by using 0.5% NaOCl along with ultrasonic instrumentation would lead to more appropriate antibacterial activities than just hand preparation. Huque et al. (39) demonstrated the superiority of passive ultrasonic irrigation over irrigation of the syringe. In contrast, there was no marked difference between syringe irrigation and passive ultrasonic irrigation reported by Alves et al. (40) and Siqueira et al. (41). In an in vitro study, Tardivo et al. (42) indicated that there has been no difference between syringe irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation, and passive sonic irrigation in reducing Enterococcus faecalis through using 5.25% NaOCl. Also, some experiments have revealed the beneficial effect of irrigation by ultrasonic instruments on lowering the canal bacteria (43, 44).

Newer NaOCl-Based Irrigants

Chlor-XTRA consists of 5.85% NaOCl and a detergent, which can decrease surface tension. Its color is transparent pale yellow-green with a chlorine-like odor and is fully soluble in water. It is 2.6 times more digestive than typical NaOCl, and is 2.5 times higher than typical NaOCl wetting ability (26, 45). By using the agar diffusion test recently, it has been discovered that Chlor-XTRA has been the most powerful alternative against Actinomyces Israeli (46). Hypoclean is a recent root canal irrigant based on NaOCl comprised of 5.25% NaOCl and two disinfectants. Hypoclean substantivity could be seen for up to 4 weeks (45). Recently, agar diffusion test has shown that Hypoclean has become the most efficient irrigation solution against certain bacteria, such as Candida albicans, Pseudomonas aeroginosa, and Lactobacillus casei (46).

CHX

Mechanism of Action

CHX is a lipophilic and hydrophobic substance that connects with the membrane of bacterial cells, and can therefore penetrate the bacteria (6). CHX, through positively charging the molecule, will change the osmotic balance of the cells. CHX is bacteriostatic at 0.2% concentration due to potassium and phosphorous leakage from the bacterial cell membrane. By contrast, 2% CHX has a bactericidal function due to cytoplasmic material precipitation (47).

Antibacterial Aactivity

Basson and Tait (48) conducted an in vitro research indicating that the only irrigant capable of fully disinfecting the channels contaminated with Actinomyces Israeli even after two months has been a 2% CHX solution. Oncag et al. (49) found, in another in vitro research, that after 5 minutes and 48 hours, 2% CHX was more successful against Enterococcus faecalis than 5.25% NaOCl. Ercan et al. (12) reported that 2% CHX was successful in minimizing the volume of microbes in teeth with necrotic pulp, periapical disease or even both According to Tanomaru et al. (50), the endotoxin in vivo was not inactivated by 2% CHX along with biomechanical preparation.

Antifungal activity

Waltimo et al. (16) found that in just five minutes, 0.5% CHX-acetate could destroy all seven strains of Candida albicans. After only one hour, the contaminated bovine dentine treated with CHX conjugated in zinc oxide paste may be disinfected (51). Ferguson et al. (17)confirmed that CHX-digluconate was successful against Candida albicans.

Antibiofilm Activity

Clegg et al. (23) found that biofilm could not be damaged by 2% CHX. Dunavant et al. (24) reported that there is no disparity in the killing of Enterococcus faecalis biofilm between 1 minute and 5 minutes application of 2% CHX. Moreover, the percentage of bacteria destroyed was 60%. In contrast, Lima et al. (52) found that one-day and three-day Enterococcus faecalis biofilms can be completely removed by substances comprising 2% CHX.

Substantivity

The in vitro and in vivo researches represented the antimicrobial substantivity of 2% CHX solution for 72 (53) and 48 (54) hours. Few other studies found that CHX substantivity would last from 4 (55) to 12 (56)weeks. Lately, CHX solvent and gel have recently been found to be maintained in dentine for up to 90 days (56). The time taken for the dentine treatment to trigger substantivity is still controversial. Though other studies have shown that 5-10 minutes of dentin treatment may cause substantivity (54, 55, 57). Others (58, 59) linked CHX substantivity to its capacity to adsorb dentin in the first hour. Studies lately suggest that there has been a connection between the duration of dentine therapy and the substantive irrigant (60). Moreover, CHX delayed canal recontamination through the coronal pathway (61).In another study, Mohammadi et al. (62) stated that the substantivity of CHX makes it an excellent choice for final canal rinsing.

Buffering Effect of Dentine and Canal Contents on CHX

One research displayed that the dentin powder prevented antibacterial function of 0.5% and 0.05% CHX acetate (63). Portenier et al. (64) illustrated that bovine serum albumin suppressed 0.05% CHX and slowed down by dentin. Yet CHX seemed to have little inhibition from hydroxyapatite. It was shown that the most powerful inhibitors of CHX can be heat-killed bacterial cells and even the dentin matrix; nevertheless, pretreatment of dentin by EDTA or citric acid has led to the minor inhibition activity. At 1 hour, dentine showed certain inhibition but after 24 hours it has no effect (65). It has been shown that the existence of dentine or bovine serum albumin can trigger a substantial delay in CHX destroying Enterococcus faecalis (66, 67). Mohammadi and Shalavi (68) have shown that both heat-killed Candida albicans and dentine powder have greatly reduced the function of 2% CHX against Enterococcus faecalis and Streptococcus sanguis.

Tissue Solubility

Okino et al. (69) found that the pulp could not be dissolved within 6 hours by 2% CHX-digluconate (aqueous solution) and 2% CHX digluconate (gel). In addition, Naenni et al. (27) have noted that 10% CHX has no significant ability to remove tissue.

Toxicity of CHX

Sanchez et al. (70) demonstrated that high CHX concentrations with bactericidal activity were harmful to embryonic fibroblasts, while non-cytotoxic CHX concentrations permitted bacterial growth. Tatnall et al. (71) observed that CHX concentrations prescribed for wound cleaning might also have adverse effects such as fibroblast destruction and basal keratinocyte removal.

Babich et al. (72) suggested that the toxic effects of CHX to gingival cells largely depends on the duration of exposure. Similarly, Boyce et al. (73) reported that the 0.05% CHX was harmful to human cells and microorganisms. However, Ribeiro et al. (74) demonstrated that CHX does not have genotoxicity against hamster cells.

Allergic Reactions to CHX

 Sensitivity to CHX was confirmed to be uncommon but contact dermatitis could be a side effect (75). Some other adverse effects including tooth discoloration, gingivitis, sensitivity to light, and occasional anaphylactic reactions have been mentioned (76, 77).

New CHX-Based Irrigants

CHX-Plus

A newer type of CHX, called CHX-Plus (Vista Dental Products, Racine, WI, USA) has recently been released that includes surface modifiers. Studies on CHX-Plus are very limited. Utilizing a 3-dimensional quantitative study, Shen et al. (78) showed that, at 1 minute, 3 minutes and 10 minutes, CHX-Plus was more successful than CHX against spirochetes biofilms. A survey was performed by Bidar et al. (79) to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of 2% CHX, 2.5% NaOCL, and 2% CHX MUMS. All the aforementioned irrigants have been tested on Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus mutans, Candida Albicans, Lactobacillus casei. Results suggested that MUMS containing CHX demonstrated antimicrobial properties much like the effect of CHX on Escherichia Coli, Streptococcus mutans, Candida Albicans, Enterococcus faecalis, and Lactobacillus casei in preventing incubation of all these microorganisms. NaOCl is not successful against Enterococcus faecalis and Candida Albicans in 15, 30, and 45 minutes incubated as well as Enterococcus faecalis within 15 minutes (80).

Q-Mix

Q-Mix is also another root canal irrigant base on CHX, which contains CHX, EDTA, saline, and a detergent (81). Chemical property of Q-Mix prohibits precipitation of CHX as the orange-brown precipitate is not formed along with EDTA and mixing with NaOCl. the capability of Q-Mix to eliminate smear layer was found to be equal with that of 17% EDTA (82) and its antibacterial efficacy was higher than 1%, 2% NaOCl, and 2% CHX. Mohammadi et al. (83) also reported that Qmix should be used at the final rinse and is assumed to be as successful as EDTA.

MTAD

In 2003, Torabinejad et al. (84) proposed a new substance named MTAD that is composed of 4.25% citric acid, 3% doxycycline, and 0.5% polysorbate which acts as a detergent.

Antimicrobial Activity

MTAD will break down the smear layer and is able to perform successfully against Enterococcus faecalis based on some studies by Torabinejad et al. (84-87). One study (87) demonstrated that MTAD is a better alternative than 5.25% NaOCl for canal disinfection. In comparison, Kho and Baumgartner (88) claimed that the usage of a combination of the 1.3% NaOCl/MTAD left 50% of the canals contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis. Another survey by Newberry et al. (89) revealed that MTAD inhibited the production of Enterococcus faecalis when diluted.

Substantivity of MTAD

Another component of MTAD is Doxycycline and is in charge of antimicrobial activity (84). Mohammadi and Shahriari (55) stated that the substantivity of MTAD was greater than that of CHX and NaOCl in 4 weeks period. In another research, the substantivity of 100% MTAD was higher than other concentrations of MTAD (90). Tay et al. (91) ended up finding that, when added to NaOCl-irrigated dentin, MTAD antimicrobial substantivity reduced by 1.3%.

MTAD and Biofilms

Based on the findings of Clegg et al. (23), 6% NaOCl was the only irrigant capable of making bacteria inviable and physically eliminating the biofilm. Dunavant et al. (24) indicated that MTAD removed 16% of microbial pathogens in Enterococcus faecalis biofilm. In contrast, Giardino et al. (25) demonstrated that MTAD was unable to destroy bacterial biofilm.

Effect on Dentine and Smear Layer Removal

Torabinejad et al. (84) reported that MTAD is an appropriate choice for eliminating the smear layer. When MTAD was used after irrigation of the canal with NaOCl as a final rinse, it did not significantly alter the composition of the dentinal tubule. However, Lotfi et al. (92) have shown that MTAD has not removed the smear layer. Another study by Tay et al. (93) has shown that MTAD is able to create a thicker demineralized dentine matrix than EDTA. De-Deus et al. (94) observed that demineralization induced by MTAD was comparatively quicker than demineralization induced by EDTA. Machnick et al. (95) suggested there was little disparity between MTAD and saline in the flexural intensity of the dentin.

MTAD and Dentin Bonding

Machnick et al. (96)displayed that the MTAD applied throughout the root canal therapy did not require additional dentine preparation before dentin bonding was implemented. Another survey by Garcia-Godoy et al. (97) showed that the thickness of MTAD hybrid layer was approximately 17% greater than EDTA. In comparison with NaOCl, neither MTAD nor EDTA improved the strength of the bond between epiphany and dentin (98).A further research by Yurdaguven et al. (99) showed that MTAD reduced the connection of Clearfil SE Bond to coronal dentine.

Toxicity of MTAD

Zhang et al. (33) considered MTAD to be less cytotoxic than 3% H2O2, 5.25% NaOCl, eugenol, calcium hydroxide, and EDTA; but perhaps more cytotoxic than 2.6% and 0.66% NaOCl, in turn. MTAD also displayed less cytotoxicity than other irrigation products based on a study by Yasuda et al. (100).

Tetraclean

Tetraclean is a relatively new substance, which was first introduced in Italy and is a mixture of 50 mg/ml doxycycline, acid, and a detergent, which is polypropylene glycol.The surface tension of NaOCl and EDTA is much more than that of Tetraclean (101).

Antibacterial Activity

In an in vitro experiment, Neglia et al. (102) showed that Tetraclean was a successful option against Enterococcus faecalis. Similarly, Ardizzoni et al. (103) highlighted that Tetraclean had been fully successful against Enterococcus faecalis at specific concentration (up to 1:256). Moreover, Giardino et al. (104) proposed that Tetraclean would be more successful than CHX against endodontic microorganisms. Similarly, Pappen et al. (105) indicated that Tetraclean was more successful against Enterococcus faecalis than MTAD. According to reports from Poggio et al. (106), the Tetraclean efficacy against Streptococcus mutans and Enterococcus faecalis was substantially higher than NaOCl.

Substantivity of Tetraclean

Mohammadi et al. (107) reported that Tetraclean substantivity was significantly higher than MTAD and even 5.25% NaOCl and is able to stay in dentin for 4 weeks at minimum (108). Tetraclean has made a direct relation between substantivity and time of dentine treatment (109). In addition, pretreatment of dentin with NaOCl is thought to greatly minimize Tetraclean substantivity (110).

Smear Layer Removal Ability

Poggio et al. (111) reported that Tetraclean capacity for demineralization was markedly higher than 17% EDTA.

Iodine Compounds

Mechanism of action

It would appear that the precise mechanism of action of iodine compounds is the iodine attack to the proteins. Molecular iodine is in charge of the action against bacteria. A critical form of iodine complexes is IKI, which is produced by combining iodine into potassium iodide; dissolved in distilled water afterward (112).

Antibacterial Activity

Peciuliene et al. (113) suggested that 2% IKI was successful in disinfecting the root canal system with 4% potassium iodide. Abdullah et al. (114) reported that application of 10% povidone-iodine in 30 minutes ended in a 100% decrease in Enterococcus faecalis. In a model using the contaminated bovine teeth with Enterococcus faecalis, Baker et al. (115) revealed that the agents comprising iodine were considerably stronger than calcium hydroxide. Shurrab (116) considered povidone iodine to be particularly efficient against Enterococcus faecalis, and its minimum active concentration in contaminated canals was 1%.

Antifungal Activity

Waltimo et al. (16) illustrated that IKI would destroy all Candida albicans in just 30 seconds. It has been reported that two weeks after the application of 2% iodine-iodate solution as an intra-canal medication destroyed half of the Candida albicans cells (117).Peciuliene et al. (113) also observed that 4% potassium iodide could eliminate all Candida albicans cells in 30 seconds; while ten-fold dilution would destroy all cells after 5 minutes.

Buffering Effect of Dentine

Dentine demonstrates some inhibitory effects on iodine solutions activity. Haapasalo et al. (63) found that dentine powder inhibited the impact of 0.4% potassium iodide; although, dentine powder inactivation of 4% potassium iodide has been very poor. Portenier et al. (64) found that hydroxyapatite caused limited inhibition in dentine, whereas collagen matrix efficiently inhibited 0.1% IKI.

Cytotoxicity

Barnhart et al. (34) suggested that IKI was considerably less cytotoxic than NaOCl. Using cultivated Chinese hamster lung cells, Iwasaki et al. (118) demonstrated that povidone-iodine cytotoxicity appeared in dose- and time-dependent ways, and that povidone-iodine induced cell synthesis inhibition of DNA, RNA, and protein, along with therapy that did not affect cell viability. In an in vitro analysis to determine the cytotoxicity of povidone-iodine mouth-rinse on gingival fibroblasts, Wilken et al. (119)observed that 20% povidone-iodine fixed cells instantly. Another research by Cabral and Fernandes (120) has demonstrated that CHX has greater cytotoxicity than iodine povidone.

EDTA

Structure and Smear Layer Removal

EDTA is a colorless chelating agent and soluble in water. It is synthesized primarily from ethylenediamine, sodium cyanide, and formaldehyde (121). 

Wu et al. (122) found that 17%  EDTA was substantially more effective than MTAD and 20% citric acid for smear layer elimination. If 5.25% NaOCl is used as a preliminary irrigant, Dai et al. (80) have demonstrated that 17% EDTA was as successful as Q-Mix in eliminating smear layers. Rodig et al. (123), Mancini et al. (124), and da Silva et al. (125) have stated that EDTA is a great substitute for eliminating the smear layer.

Antimicrobial Activity

Patterson (126) showed that antimicrobial activity of EDTA was limited. This is the consequence of cations being chelated from the outer bacterial membrane. Kotula and Bradshaw (127) revealed that the antimicrobial activity of EDTA was preserved for as long as there was no bond with metal ions. Heling et al. (128) have found that the antibacterial activity improved by rising temperature from 10 to 45°C. In another study, Ørstavik and Haapasalo (129) challenged the antimicrobial activity of 17% EDTA and Ordinola-Zapata et al. (130) stated that EDTA has no considerable effect on the biofilm. According to these observations, even after one hour, Arias-Moliz et al. (131) demonstrated no influence of EDTA on Enterococcus faecalis. Bystrom and Sundqvist (132) reported that EDTA and NaOCl together had greater antimicrobial activity than NaOCl alone. However, Sen et al. (133) discovered that EDTA was successful against Candida albicans. Mohammadi et al. (134) proposed that the combination of CH with NaOCl, CHX and IKI would improve the antimicrobial efficacy of these compounds. It should be emphasized that the interactions between canal irrigants and dentin should be focused (135, 136).

Conclusion

Irrigants have a key role in the eradication of microbes from the root canal system. Some parameters such as antibacterial, antifungal, and antibiofilm activity, toxicity, tissue solubility, substantivity, impact on dentin and smear layer, and side effects such as allergic reactions can affect the choice of an appropriate irrigant. NaOCl has been regarded in several studies as the most successful irrigation solution for endodontic treatment. Its antimicrobial activity is at least comparable or even greater than that of other popular irrigants. It is the only irrigant able to remove and eliminate the microbial biofilm from the canal. It could be used as a strong agent with the highest dissolving tissue capacity as an irrigant.

References

. Kakehashi S, Stanley HR, Fitzgerald RJ. The effects of surgical exposure of dental pulps in germ – free and conventional laboratory rats. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1965;20(3):340-349.
2. Möller AJ. Microbiological examination of root canals and periapical tissues of human teeth Methodological studies. Odontologisk Tidscrift. 1966;74(5):1-380.
3. Sundqvist G. Ecology of the root canal flora. J Endod. 1992;18(9):427-430.
4. Peters OA, Laib A, Gohring TN, et al. Changes in root canal geometry after preparation assessed by high resolution computed tomography. J Endod. 2001;27(1):1-6.
5. Bystrom A, Sundqvist G. Bacteriologic evaluation of the efficacy of mechanical root canal instrumentation in endodontic therapy. Scand J Dent Res. 1981;89(4):321-328.
6. Mohammadi Z, Abbott PV. The properties and applications of chlorhexidine in endodontics. Int Endod J. 2009;42(4):288-302.
7. Estrela C, Estrela CR, Barbin EL, et al. Mechanism of action of sodium hypochlorite. Braz Dent J 2002;13(2):113-117.
8. Mohammadi Z. Sodium hypochlorite in endodontics: an update review. Int Dent J. 2008;58(6):329-341.
9. Bystrom A, Sundqvist G. Bacteriologic evaluation of the effect of 0.5 percent sodium hypochlorite in endodontic therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1983:55(3):307-312.
10. Siqueira JF, Batista MM, Fraga RC, et al. Antibacterial effects of endodontic irrigants on black-pigmented gram-negative anaerobes and facultative bacteria. J Endod .1998;24(6):414-416.
11. Berber VB, Gomes BP, Sena NT, et al. Efficacy of various concentrations of NaOCl and instrumentation techniques in reducing Enterococcus faecalis within root canals and dentinal tubules. Int Endod J.2006;39(1):10-17.
12. Ercan E, Ozekinci T, Atakul F, et al. Antibacterial activity of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite in infected root canal: in vivo study. J Endod. 2004;30(2):84-87.
13. Siqueira JF, Sen BH. Fungi in endodontic infections. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004;97(5):632-641.
14. Waltimo TMT, Haapasalo M, Zehnder M, Meyer J. Clinical aspects related to endodontic yeast infections. Endod Topics. 2004;9(1):66-78.
15. Sen BH, Safavi KE, Spångberg LS. Antifungal effects of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine in root canals. J Endod. 1999;25(4):235-238.
16. Waltimo TM, Ørstavik D, Siren EK, Haapasalo MP. In vitro susceptibility of Candida albicans to four disinfectants and their combinations. Int Endod J. 1999;32(6):421-429.
17. Ferguson JW, Hatton JF, Gillespie MJ. Effectiveness of intracanal irrigants and medications against the yeast Candida albicans. J Endod 2002;28(2):68-71.
18. Ruff ML, McClanahan SB, Babel BS. In vitro antifungal efficacy of four irrigants as a final rinse. J Endod. 2006;32(4):331-333.
19. Radcliffe CE, Potouridou L Qureshi R, et al. Antimicrobial activity of varying concentrations of sodium hypochlorite on the endodontic microorganisms Actinomyces israelii, A. naeslundii, Candida albicans and Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J. 2004;37(7):438-446.
20. Ayhan H, Sultan N, Cirak M, et al. Antimicrobial effects of various endodontic irrigants on selected microorganisms. Int Endod J. 1999;32(2):99-102.
21. Svensater G, Bergenholtz G. Biofilms in endodontic infections. Endod Topics. 2004;9(1):27-36.
22. Spratt DA, Pratten J, Wilson M, Gulabivala K. An in vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of irrigants on biofilms of root canal isolates. Int Endod J. 2001;34(4):300–307.
23. Clegg MS, Vertucci FJ, Walker C, Belanger M, Britto LR. The effect of exposure to irrigant solutions on apical dentine biofilms in vitro. J Endod. 2006;32(5):434-437.
24. Dunavant TR, Regan JD, Glickman GN, Solomon ES, Honeyman AL. Comparative evaluation of endodontic irrigants against Enterococcus faecalis biofilms. J Endod. 2006;32(6):527-531.
25. Giardino L, Ambu E, Savoldi E, et al. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of sodium hypochlorite, MTAD, and Tetraclean against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm. J Endod. 2007;33(7):852-855.
26. Grossman LI, Meiman BW. Solution of pulp tissue by chemical agents. J Am Dent Assoc. 1941;28(2):223-225.
27. Naenni N, Thoma K, Zehnder M. Soft tissue dissolution capacity of currently used and potential endodontic irrigants. J Endod. 2004;30(11):785-787.
28. Clarkson RM, Moule AJ, Podlich H, et al. Dissolution of porcine incisor pulps in sodium hypochlorite solutions of varying compositions and concentrations. Aust Dent J. 2006;51(3):245-251.
29. Clarkson RM, Kidd B, Evans GE, Moule AJ. The effect of surfactant on the dissolution of porcine pulpal tissue by sodium hypochlorite solutions. J Endod. 2012;38(9):1257-1260.
30. Pashley EL, Birdsong NL, Bowman K, et al. Cytotoxic effects of NaOCl on vital tissue. J Endod. 1985;11(12):525–528.
31. Kozol RA, Gillies C, Elgebaly SA. Effects of sodium hypochlorite (Dakin's solution) on cells of the wound module. Arch Surg. 1988;123(4):420-423.
32. Heggers JP, Sazy JA, Stenberg BD, et al. Bactericidal and wound-healing properties of sodium hypochlorite solutions: the 1991 Lindberg Award. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1991;12(5):420–424.
33. Zhang W, Torabinejad M, Li Y. Evaluation of cytotoxicity of MTAD using the MTT-tetrazolium method. J Endod. 2003;29(10):654-657.
34. Barnhart BD, Chuang A, Lucca JJ, et al. An in vitro evaluation of the cytotoxicity of various endodontic irrigants on human gingival fibroblasts. J Endod. 2005;31(8):613-615.
35. Hauman CH, Love RM. Biocompatibility of dental materials used in contemporary endodontic therapy: a review. Part 1.Intracanal drugs and substances. Int Endod J. 2003;36(2):75-85.
36. Brown DC, Moore BK, Brown CE, et al. An in vitro study of apical extrusion of sodium hypochlorite during endodontic canal preparation. J Endod. 1995;21(12):587–591.
37. Siqueira JF, Rôças IN. Optimising single-visit disinfection with supplementary approaches: A quest for predictability. Aust Endod J. 2011;37(3):92-98.
38. Sjögren U, Sundqvist G. Bacteriologic evaluation of ultrasonic root canal instrumentation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1987;63(3):366–370.
 39. Huque J, Kota K, Yamaga M, Iwaku M, Hoshino E. Bacterial eradication from root dentine by ultrasonic irrigation with sodium hypochlorite. Int Endod J. 1998;31(4):242–250.
40. Alves FR, Almeida BM, Neves MA, Moreno JO, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF. Disinfecting oval-shaped root canals: effectiveness of different supplementary approaches. J Endod .2011;37(4):496–501.
 41. Siqueira JF, Machado AG, Silveira RM, Lopes HP, de Uzeda M. Evaluation of the effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite used with three irrigation methods in the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis from the root canal, in vitro. Int Endod J. 1997;30(4):279–282.
42. Tardivo D, Pommel L, La Scola B, About I, Camps J. Antibacterial efficiency of passive ultrasonic versus sonic irrigation. Ultrasonic root canal irrigation. Odontostomatol Tropical. 2010;33(129):29–35.
43. Gutarts R, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M. In vivo debridement efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation following hand rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars. J Endod. 2005;31(3):166–170.
44. Carver K, Nusstein J, Reader A, Beck M. In vivo antibacterial efficacy of ultrasound after hand and rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars. J Endod. 2007;33(9):1038–1043.
45. Palazzi F, , Morra M, Mohammadi Z, Grandini S, Giardino L. Comparison of the surface tension of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite solution with three new sodium hypochlorite-based endodontic irrigants. Int Endod J. 2012;45(2):129-135.
46. Mohammadi Z, Shalavi S, Giardino L, Palazzi F, Mashouf RY, Soltanian A. Antimicrobial effect of three new and two established root canal irrigation solutions. Gen Dent. 2012;60(6):534-537.
47. Gomes BPFA, Souza SFC, Ferraz CR, Teixeira FB, Zaia AA, Valdrighi L, Souza-Filho FJ. Effectiveness of 2% chlorhexidine gel and calcium hydroxide against Enterococcus faecalis in bovine root dentine in vitro. Int Endod J. 2003;36(4):267-275.
48. Basson NJ, Tait CM. Effectiveness of three root canal medicaments to eliminate Actinomyces israelii from infected dentinal tubules in vitro. South Afr Dent J. 2001;56(11):499-501.
49. Onçağ O, Hoşgör M, Hilmioğlu S, Zekioğlu O, Eronat C, Burhanoğlu D. Comparison of antibacterial and toxic effects of various root canal irrigants. Int Endod J. 2003;36(6):423-432.
50. Tanomaru JM, Leonardo MR, Tanomaru Filho M, Bonetti Filho I, Silva LA. Effect of different irrigation solutions and calcium hydroxide on bacterial LPS. Int Endod J. 2003;36(11):733-739.
51. Siqueira JF, Rôças IN, Lopes HP, Magalhães FA, de Uzeda M. Elimination of Candida albicans infection of the radicular dentine by intracanal medications. J Endod. 2003;29(8):501-504.
52. Lima KC, Fava LR, Siqueira JF. Susceptibilities of Enterococcus faecalis biofilms to some antimicrobial medications. J Endod. 2001;27(10):616-619.
53. Stabholz A, Kettering J, Aprecio R, Zimmerman G, Baker PJ, Wikesjo UM. Retention of antimicrobial activity by human root surfaces after in situ subgingival irrigation with tetracycline HCl or chlorhexidine. J Periodontol. 1993;64(2):137-141.
54. White RR, Hays GL, Janer LR. Residual antimicrobial activity after canal irrigation with chlorhexidine. J Endod. 1997;23(4):229-231.
55. Mohammadi Z, Shahriari S. Residual antibacterial activity of chlorhexidine and MTAD in human root dentine in vitro. J Oral Sci.2008;50(1):63-67.
56. Rosenthal S, Spångberg L, Safavi K. Chlorhexidine substantivity in root canal dentin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004;98(4):488–492.
57. Souza M, Cecchin D, Farina AP, et al. Evaluation of chlorhexidine substantivity on human dentin: a chemical analysis. J Endod. 2012;38(9):1249-1252.
58. Khademi AA, Mohammadi Z, Havaee SA. Evaluation of the antibacterial substantivity of several intra-canal agents. Aust Endod J. 2006;32(3):112-115.
59. Lin S, Zuckerman O, Weiss EI, Fuss Z. Antibacterial efficacy of a new chlorhexidine slow-releasing device to disinfect dentinal tubules. J Endod. 2003;29(6):416–418.
60. Komorowski R, Grad H, Wu XY, Friedman S. Antimicrobial substantivity of chlorhexidine-treated bovine root dentine. J Endod. 2000;26(6):315–317.
61. Abdolrazzaghi M. Effect of treatment duration with 2% chlorhexidine solution on the antibacterial substantivity of human root dentine. Post-graduate Dissertation, 2011; No. 23, Hamedan University of Medical Sciences, Hamedan, Iran.
62. Mohammadi Z, Jafarzadeh H, Shalavi S. Antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine as a root canal irrigant: a literature review. J Oral Sci. 2014;56(2):99-103.
63. Haapasalo HK, Sirén EK, Waltimo TM, Ørstavik D, Haapasalo MP. Inactivation of local root canal medicaments by dentine: an in vitro study. Int Endod J. 2000;33(2):126–131.
64. Portenier I, Haapasalo H, Rye A, Waltimo T, Ørstavik D, Haapasalo M. Inactivation of root canal medicaments by dentine, hydroxylapatite and bovine serum albumin. Int Endod J. 2001;34(3):184–188.
65. Portenier I, Haapasalo H, Ørstavik D, Yamauchi M, Haapasalo M. Inactivation of the antibacterial activity of iodine potassium iodide and chlorhexidine digluconate against Enterococcus faecalis by dentin, dentin matrix, type-I collagen, and heat killed microbial whole cells. J Endod. 2002;28(9):634 –637.
66. Portenier I, Waltimo T, Ørstavik D, Haapasalo M. Killing of Enterococcus faecalis by MTAD and chlorhexidine digluconate with or without cetrimide in the presence or absence of dentine powder or BSA. J Endod. 2006;32(2):138–141.
67. Sassone LM, Fidel R, Fidel S, Vieira M, Hirata R. The influence of organic load on the antimicrobial activity of different concentrations of NaOCl and chlorhexidine in vitro. Int Endod J. 2003;36(12):848-852.
68. Mohammadi Z, Shalavi S. Effect of heat-killed Candida albicans and dentine powder on the antibacterial activity of chlorhexidine solution. Iran Endod J. 2012;7(2):63-67.
69. Okino LA, Siqueira EL, Santos M, Bombana AC, Figueiredo JA. Dissolution of pulp tissue by aqueous solution of chlorhexidine digluconate and chlorhexidine digluconate gel. Int Endod J. 2004;37(1):38–41.
70. Sanchez IR, Nusbaum KE, Swaim SF, Hale AS, Henderson RA, McGuire JA. Chlorhexidine diacetate and povidone iodine cytotoxicity to canine embryonic fibroblasts and Staphylococcus aureus. Veter Surg. 1988;17(4):182-185.
71. Tatnall FM, Leigh IM, Gibson JR. Comparative study of antiseptic toxicity on basal keratinocytes, transformed human keratinocytes and fibroblasts. Skin Pharmacol. 1990;3(3):157-163.
72. Babich ST, Warden GD, Holder IA. Cytotoxicity testing of topical antimicrobial agents on human keratinocytes and fibroblasts for cultured skin grafts. Burn Care Rehabil. 1995;16(2):97–103.
73. Boyce H, Wurzburger BJ, Rubin YL, Sinensky MC, Blau L. An in vitro study on the cytotoxicity of chlorhexidine digluconate to human gingival cells. Cell Biol Toxicol. 1995;11(2):79–88.
74. Ribeiro DA, Scolastici C, de Almeida PLA, Marques PLA, Marques MEA, Salvadori MF. Genotoxicity of antimicrobial endodontic compounds by single cell gel (comet) assay in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005;99(5):637–640.
75. Krautheim AB, German THM, Bircher AJ. Chlorhexidine anaphylaxis: case report and review of the literature. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50(3):113–116.
76. Torricelli R, Wüthrich B. Life-threatening anaphylactic shock due to skin application of chlorhexidine. Clin Exp Allergy. 1996;26(1):112–113.
77. Snellman E & Rantanen T. Severe anaphylaxis after a chlorhexidine bath. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;40(5):771–772.
78. Shen Y, Stojicic S, Qian W, Olsen I, Haapasalo M. The synergistic antimicrobial effect by mechanical agitation and two chlorhexidine preparations on biofilm bacteria. J Endod. 2010;36(1):100-104.
79. Bidar M, Hooshiar S, Naderinasab M, Moazzami M, Orafaee H, Naghavi N, Jafarzadeh H. Comparative study of the antimicrobial effect of three irrigant solutions (chlorhexidine, sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidinated MUMS). J Contemp Dent Pract. 2012;13(4):436-439.
80. Shen Y, Stojicic S, Haapasalo M. Antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine against bacteria in biofilms at different stages of development. J Endod. 2011;37(5):657-661.
81. Dai L, Khechen K, Khan S, et al. The effect of QMix, an experimental antibacterial root canal irrigant, on removal of canal wall smears layer and debris. J Endod. 2011;37(6):80-84.
82. Ma J, Wang Z, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. A new noninvasive model to study the effectiveness of dentin disinfection by using confocal laser scanning microscopy. J Endod. 2011; 37: 1380-1385.
83. Mohammadi Z, Shalavi S, Yaripour S, Kinoshita JI, Manabe A, Kobayashi M, Giardino L, Palazzi F, Sharifi F, Jafarzadeh H. Smear layer removing ability of root canal irrigation solutions: a review. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019;20(3):395-402.
84. Torabinejad M, Khademi AA, Babagoli J, et al. A new solution for the removal of the smear layer. J Endod. 2003;29(3):170-175.
85. Torabinejad M, Shabahang S, Aprecio R, Kettering JD. The antimicrobial effect of MTAD: An in vitro investigation. J Endod. 2003;29(6):400-403.
86. Shabahang S, Torabinejad M. Effect of MTAD on Enterococcus faecalis-contaminated root canals of extracted human teeth. J Endod. 2003;29(9):576-579.
87. Shabahang S, Pouresmail M, Torabinejad M. In vitro antibacterial efficacy of MTAD and sodium hypochlorite. J Endod. 2003;29(7):450-452.
88. Kho P, Baumgartner JC. A comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of NaOCl/BioPure MTAD versus NaOCl/EDTA against Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod. 2006;32(7):652-655.
89. Newberry BM, Shabahang S, Johnson N, Aprecio RM, Torabinejad M. The antimicrobial effect of BioPure MTAD on eight strains of Enterococcus faecalis: an in vitro investigation. J Endod. 2007;33(11):1352-1354.
90. Mohammadi Z. Evaluation of residual antibacterial activity of three concentrations of new root canal irrigation solution. N Y State Dent J. 2008;74(6):31-33.
91. Tay FR, Hiraishi N, Schuster GS, et al. Reduction in antimicrobial substantivity of MTAD after initial sodium hypochlorite irrigation. J Endod. 2006;32(10):970-975.
92. Lotfi M, Vosoughhosseini S, Saghiri MA, Zand V, Ranjkesh B, Ghasemi N. Effect of MTAD as a final rinse on removal of smear layer in ten-minute preparation time. J Endod. 2012;38(10):1391-1394.
93. Tay FR, Pashley D, Loushine RJ, et al. Ultrastructure of smear layer-covered intraradicular dentin after irrigation with BioPure MTAD. J Endod. 2006;32(3):218-221.
94. De-Deus G, Reis C, Fidel S, et al. Dentin demineralization when subjected to BioPure MTAD: a longitudinal and quantitative assessment. J Endod. 2007;33(11):1364-1368.
95. Machnick TK, Torabinejad M, Munoz CA, Shabahang S. Macknick T, Effect of MTAD on flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of dentin. J Endod. 2003;29(11):747-750.
96. Machnick TK, Torabinejad M, Munoz CA, Shabahang S. Effect of MTAD on the bond strength to enamel and dentin. J Endod. 2003;29(12):818-821.
97. Garcia-Godoy F, Loushine RJ, Itthagarun A, et al. Application of biologically-oriented dentin bonding principles to the use of endodontic irrigants. Am J Dent. 2005;18(4):281-290.
98. Wachlarowicz AJ, Joyce AP, Roberts S, et al. Effect of endodontic irrigants on the shear bond strength of epiphany sealer to dentin. J Endod. 2007;33(2):152-155.
99. Yurdagüven H, Tanalp J, Toydemir B, Mohseni K, Soyman M, Bayirli G. The effect of endodontic irrigants on the microtensile bond strength of dentin adhesives. J Endod. 2009;35(9):1259-1263.
100. Yasuda Y, Tatematsu Y, Fujii S, et al. Effect of MTAD on the differentiation of osteoblast-like cells. J Endod. 2010;36(2):260-263.
101. Giardino L, Ambu E, Becce C, Rimondini L, Morra M. Surface tension comparison of four common root canal irrigants and two new irrigants containing antibiotic. J Endod. 2006;32(11):1091-1093.
102. Neglia R, Ardizzoni A, Giardino L, et al. Comparative in vitro and ex vivo studies on the bactericidal activity of Tetraclean, a new generation endodontic irrigant, and sodium hypochlorite. New Microbiologica. 2008;31(1):57-65.
103. Ardizzoni A, Blasi E, Rimoldi C, et al. An in vitro and ex vivo study on two antibiotic-based endodontic irrigants: a challenge to sodium hypochlorite. New Microbiologica. 2009;32(1):57-66.
104. Giardino L, Savoldi E, Ambu E, Rimondini R, Palezona A, Debbia EA. Antimicrobial effect of MTAD, Tetraclean, Cloreximid, and sodium hypochlorite on three common endodontic pathogens. Indian J Dent Res. 2009;20(3):391.
105. Pappen FG, Shen Y, Qian W, et al. In vitro antibacterial action of Tetraclean, MTAD and five experimental irrigation solutions. Int Endod J. 2010;43(6):528-535.
106. Poggio C, Colombo M, Scribante A, Sforza D, Bianchi S. In vitro antibacterial activity of different endodontic irrigants. Dent Traumatol. 2012;28(3):205-209.
107. Mohammadi Z, Giardino L, Mombeinipour A. Antibacterial substantivity of a new antibiotic-based endodontic irrigation solution. Aust Endod J. 2012;38(1):26-30.
108. Mohammadi Z, Mombeinipour A, Giardino L, Shahriari S. Residual antibacterial activity of a new modified sodium hypochlorite-based endodontic irrigation solution. Med Oral Patol Oral y Cirugia Bucale. 2011;16(4):e588-592.
109. Mohammadi Z, Giardino L, Shahriari S. Effect of dentin treatment time with Tetraclean on its residual antibacterial activity. J Calif Dent Assoc 2010;38(12):853-856.
107. Mohammadi Z, Giardino L, Palazzi F, Shahriari S. Effect of initial irrigation with sodium hypochlorite on residual antibacterial activity of Tetraclean. N Y State Dent J. 2013;79(1):32-36.
112. Poggio C, Dagna A, Colombo M, et al. Decalcifying effect of different ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid irrigating solutions and Tetraclean on root canal dentine. J Endod. 2012;38(9):1239-1243.
109. Mohammadi Z. Iodine compounds in endodontics: an update review. Dent Today. 2009;28(6):81-82.
113. Peciuliene V, Reynaud AH, Balciuniene I, Haapasalo M. Isolation of yeasts and enteric bacteria in root-filled teeth with chronic apical periodontitis. Int Endod J. 2001;34(6):429-434.
114. Abdullah M, Ng YL, Gulabivala K, Moles DR, Spratt DA. Susceptibilities of two Enterococcus faecalis phenotypes to root canal medications. J Endod. 2005;31(1):30-36.
115. Baker NE, Liewehr FR, Buxton TB, Joyce AP. Antibacterial efficacy of calcium hydroxide, iodine potassium iodide, betadine, and betadine scrub with and without surfactant against E faecalis in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004;98(3):359-364.
116. Shurrab M. Antimicrobial efficiency of some antiseptic products on endodontic microflora isolated from gangrenous pulp tissue. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2000;7(4):53-62.
117. Valera MC, de Moraes Rego J, Jorge AO. Effect of sodium hypochlorite and five intracanal medications on Candida albicans in root canals. J Endod. 2001;27(6):401-403.
118. Iwasaki N, Kamoi K, Bae RD, Tsutsui T. Cytotoxicity of povidone-iodine on cultured mammalian cells. Nippon Shishubyo Gakkai Kaishi. 1989;31(3):836-842.
119. Wilken R, Botha SJ, Grobler A, Germishuys PJ. In vitro cytotoxicity of chlorhexidine gluconate, benzydamine-HCl and povidone iodine mouth rinses on human gingival fibroblasts. SADJ. 2001;56(10):455-460.
120. Cabral CT, Fernandes MH. In vitro comparison of chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine on the long-term proliferation and functional activity of human alveolar bone cells. Clin Oral Investig. 2007;11(2):155-164.
121. Mohammadi Z, Shalavi S, Jafarzadeh H. Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid in endodontics. Eur J Dent. 2013; 7(Suppl 1):S135-S142.
122. Wu L, Mu Y, Deng X, Zhang S, Zhou D. Comparison of the effect of four decalcifying agents combined with 60°C 3% sodium hypochlorite on smear layer removal. J Endod. 2012;38(3):381-384.
123. Rödig T, Döllmann S, Konietschke F, Drebenstedt S, Hülsmann M. Effectiveness of different irrigant agitation techniques on debris and smear layer removal in curved root canals: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Endod. 2010;36(12):1983-1987.
124. Mancini M, Armellin E, Casaglia A, Cerroni L, Cianconi L. A comparative study of smear layer removal and erosion in apical intraradicular dentine with three irrigating solutions: a scanning electron microscopy evaluation. J Endod. 2009;35(6):900-903.
125. da Silva LA, Sanguino AC, Rocha CT, Leonardo MR, Silva RA. Scanning electron microscopic preliminary study of the efficacy of SmearClear and EDTA for smear layer removal after root canal instrumentation in permanent teeth. J Endod. 2008;34(12):1541-1544.
126. Patterson S. In vitro and in vivo studies of the effect of the disodium salt of the ethylenediamine tetra-acetate on human dentine and its endodontic implications. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1963;16:83-103.
127. Kotula R, Bordacova J. Uber die wirkung der aethylendia mintetraessigsaure auf die mundflora. Deutsche Stomatologie. 1969;19(9):575-581.
128. Heling I, Irani E, Karni S, Steinberg D. In vitro antimicrobial effect of RC-Prep within dentinal tubules. J Endod. 1999;25(12):782-785.
129. Ørstavik D, Haapasalo M. Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and dressings of experimentally infected dentinal tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1990;6(4):142-149.
130. Ordinola-Zapata R, Bramante CM, Cavenago B, Graeff MS, Gomes de Moraes I, Marciano M, Duarte MA. Antimicrobial effect of endodontic solutions used as final irrigants on a dentine biofilm model. Int Endod J. 2012;45(2):162-168.
131. Arias-Moliz MT, Ferrer-Luque CM, Espigares-Rodríguez E, Liébana-Ureña J, Espigares-García M. Bactericidal activity of phosphoric acid, citric acid, and EDTA solutions against Enterococcus faecalis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;106(2):e84-89.
132. Bystrom A & Sundqvist G. The antibacterial action of sodium hypochlorite and EDTA in 60 cases of endodontic therapy. Int Endod J. 1985;18(1):35-40.
133. Sen BH, Akdeniz BG, Denizci AA. The effect of ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid on Candida albicans. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2000;90(5):651-655.
134. Mohammadi Z, Jafarzadeh H, Shalavi S, Sahebalam R, Kinoshita JI. Additive and reducing effects between calcium hydroxide and current irrigation solutions. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017;18(3):246-249.
135. Doganay Yildiz E, Fidan M, Dincer B. Influence of various irrigation protocols on resistance to vertical root fracture in root canal treated teeth. J Dent Mater Tech 2021;10(1):28-33.
 136. Mohammadi Z, Kinoshita J, Manabe A, Kobayashi M, Shalavi S, Palazzi F, Yaripour S, Jafarzadeh H. Effects of root canal irrigants and medicaments on dentin and vice versa: a review of Literature. J Dent Mater Tech. 2020;9(1):1-9.
Journal of Dental Materials and Techniques
Volume 10, Issue 3
September 2021
Pages 121-132

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics