Avaliação histológica da limpeza dos canais radiculares promovida por diferentes métodos de irrigação e análise tomográfica da área apical no comprimento de trabalho

Use of Sodium Hypochlorite versus Chlorexidine Gluconate as an Irrigating Solution in Endodontic Treatment: A Literature Review of the Period from 2006 to 2016

“…Some studies recommend the use of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite as the first choice to obtain quality sanitation, but emphasize the importance of controlling the volume of solution used and the contact time in the channel system during the mechanical chemical preparation [12][13][14][15]. Ribeiro et al [14] warns that the higher the concentration of sodium hypochlorite solutions, the greater the loss of collagen; in the case of solutions at 5.3% there are negative effects on tooth properties, reducing their flexural strength and dentin elasticity.…”

“…Several studies aimed at evaluating the effects of sodium hypochlorite solutions on the decomposition of pulp tissue, on dentin permeability, on the cleaning of the canal and its bactericidal action, in its different concentrations emphasizing the superiority of sodium hypochlorite solutions compared to other auxiliary solutions of the channel preparation [15]. Since sodium hypochlorite has been used for a long time, its results are already widely proven, based and consolidated in the international literature.…”

“…On the other hand, chlorhexidine appeared through studies with the aim of finding a new antimalarial agent, being developed polyibisguanide compounds that had a significant antimicrobial potential called cationic detergent and later gluconate chlorhexidine. This compound was the basis for the production of a salt that reached the consumer market under the name of chlorhexidine gluconate in 1954 [15]. As chlorhexidine gluconate exhibits an excellent degree of skin affinity, it is the first international antiseptic indicated for skin asepsis due to its good antibacterial activity and low levels of toxicity.…”

“…As chlorhexidine gluconate exhibits an excellent degree of skin affinity, it is the first international antiseptic indicated for skin asepsis due to its good antibacterial activity and low levels of toxicity. Chlorhexidine gluconate was introduced in dentistry around 1959 for the control of bacterial plaques and its use, in general, occurred around 1970 [15,16].…”

“…Among the main advantages of chlorhexidine gluconate are: enlargement and modeling of the canal system, elimination of microorganisms and their by-products, live or necrotic pulp tissue [15]. There are still many disagreements as to which chemical agent would have its most suitable qualities for the irrigation of the canal system provoking numerous discussions and controversies between the defenders of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate, which justifies if we analyze in more detail the literature produced in the the last 10 years on the employment advantages and disadvantages of each product [16].…”