Impact of Two Nano Irrigating Solutions on Microhardness of Root canal Dentin

Abstract

Background: Increased Dentin Brittleness means it is weaker and more liable to fracture under occlusal forces which adversely affects the strength of the tooth, the prognosis of the endodontic treatment, and the life time of the tooth under the occlusion forces. Irrigation solutions have different effects on the micro hardness and the micromorphology of the root canal dentin. Aim:The current study was done to evaluate the effect of two different nano irrigating solutions on the dentin microhardness. Materials and methods:Sixteen intact human maxillary incisors with mature apices were decoronated, after cleaning and shaping all the roots were longitudinally split by using Isomet. To get total of 32 root halves. Each root half was horizontally embedded in auto polymerized acrylic resin exposing the most dentin surface. Each root half was given a number and distributed into four equal groups. Group I Nano Magnesium oxide, Group II Chlorhexidine loaded chitosan nano particles, Group III 5.2% Sodium hypochlorite followed by 17% EDTA and Group IV Saline. Each half was immersed in the tested solution for 5 min. The microhardness of the root dentin was assessed by vicker's microhardness indenter Results: Group III shoed statistically significant reduction in dentin microhardness compared to other groups. Conclusion:CHX+CSNPs and MgO are suitable endodontic solutions because of their lower toxic effect on microhardness in comparison to 5.25NaOCL + 17% EDTA.

Effect of Different Irrigating Solutions on Root Canal Dentin Microhardness—A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

“…Nine studies [5,19,22,25,26,30,44,45,50] evaluated the microhardness value of the coronal, middle, and apical third separately. Four studies [19,44,45,50] concluded that there was a difference in the microhardness levels of the coronal, middle and apical thirds. Reductions in microhardness values were greater in the coronal third than the apical third.…”

“…Similarly, when using surface modifiers like Chlor-XTRA with NaOCl or REDTA (17% EDTA containing cetrimide), no significant differences were observed compared to the respective solutions without such additives [8]. Furthermore, nanoparticles such as CHX + CSNPs (chitosan-loaded nanoparticles) and MgO demonstrated a lower impact on reducing microhardness compared to a combination of 5% NaOCl with 17% EDTA [44].…”

“…Nineteen studies [11,17,19,22,23,26,27,29,31,32,[34][35][36]38,43,44,47,52,53] have examined the synergistic effects of various combinations of irrigating solutions, with sixteen [1,11,17,19,22,[31][32][33][34][35]38,43,44,47,52,53] of these specifically comparing the effects of NaOCl and EDTA in different concentrations. The combination of 2.5% NaOCl with 17% EDTA was most frequently analyzed [11,19,22,31,35,43,53] followed by 5% NaOCl combined with 17% EDTA [44,47,52].…”

“…Nineteen studies [11,17,19,22,23,26,27,29,31,32,[34][35][36]38,43,44,47,52,53] have examined the synergistic effects of various combinations of irrigating solutions, with sixteen [1,11,17,19,22,[31][32][33][34][35]38,43,44,47,52,53] of these specifically comparing the effects of NaOCl and EDTA in different concentrations. The combination of 2.5% NaOCl with 17% EDTA was most frequently analyzed [11,19,22,31,35,43,53] followed by 5% NaOCl combined with 17% EDTA [44,47,52]. The findings indicate that the mix of 2.5% NaOCl with 17% EDTA, which showed a microhardness reduction value of 30.7 ± 3.5 KHN, had a microhardness reduction comparable to the combination of 2.5% NaOCl with 10% citric acid, which resulted in a microhardness reduction of 31.5 ± 4.9 KHN after 30 m...…”

“…The quality assessment of the studies included in this systematic review was performed using the QUIN tool, a checklist of items for reporting in vitro studies specifically for dental related studies. Twelve studies [12,17,22,33,36,[40][41][42][43][44][45]51] were categorized as having a low risk, with the rest positioned within the medium risk category [1,8,11,15,16,[18][19][20][21][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]31,33,35,38,43,46,[48][49][50]52,53] as detailed in Figure 3.…”