INTRODUCTION: This study examined the ability of two versions of QMix, an experimental antimicrobial irrigant, on removal of canal wall smear layers and debris using an open canal design. METHODS: Cleaned and shaped single-rooted human root canals were irrigated with NaOCl as the initial irrigant and one of the following as the final irrigant: (1) QMix I (pH = 8), (2) QMix II (pH = 7.5), (3) distilled water, (4) 17% EDTA, and (5) BioPure MTAD (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK). Smear and debris scores were evaluated in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of longitudinally fractured canal spaces using scanning electron microscopy and analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic. RESULTS: Smear scores, when the overall canal was considered, differences were observed among groups except groups 1 versus 4 and groups 2 versus 4. After adjusting for canal levels, all groups differed significantly from each other (p < 0.005) with the exception of groups 2 versus 5. For the debris scores, no significant difference was observed among the treatment groups when the overall canal was considered and after adjusting for the effect of canal level. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of an open-canal design, the two experimental QMix versions are as effective as 17% EDTA in removing canal wall smear layers after the use of 5.25% NaOCl as the initial rinse.
INTRODUCTION: This study examined the ability of two versions of QMix, an experimental antimicrobial irrigant, on removal of canal wall smear layers and debris using an open canal design. METHODS: Cleaned and shaped single-rooted human root canals were irrigated with NaOCl as the initial irrigant and one of the following as the final irrigant: (1) QMix I (pH = 8), (2) QMix II (pH = 7.5), (3) distilled water, (4) 17% EDTA, and (5) BioPure MTAD (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK). Smear and debris scores were evaluated in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of longitudinally fractured canal spaces using scanning electron microscopy and analyzed using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic. RESULTS: Smear scores, when the overall canal was considered, differences were observed among groups except groups 1 versus 4 and groups 2 versus 4. After adjusting for canal levels, all groups differed significantly from each other (p < 0.005) with the exception of groups 2 versus 5. For the debris scores, no significant difference was observed among the treatment groups when the overall canal was considered and after adjusting for the effect of canal level. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of an open-canal design, the two experimental QMix versions are as effective as 17% EDTA in removing canal wall smear layers after the use of 5.25% NaOCl as the initial rinse.
Authors: Alexander Pompermayer Jardine; Ricardo Abreu da Rosa; Manuela Favarin Santini; Márcia Wagner; Marcus Vinícius Reis Só; Milton Carlos Kuga; Jefferson Ricardo Pereira; Patrícia Maria Poli Kopper Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2015-04-24 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Colin Eliot; John F Hatton; Gregory P Stewart; Charles F Hildebolt; M Jane Gillespie; James L Gutmann Journal: Odontology Date: 2013-01-19 Impact factor: 2.634
Authors: Li-na Niu; Xiao-juan Luo; Guo-hua Li; Eduardo A Bortoluzzi; Jing Mao; Ji-hua Chen; James L Gutmann; David H Pashley; Franklin R Tay Journal: J Dent Date: 2014-05-27 Impact factor: 4.379