Lucio Souza Gonçalves1, Renata Costa Val Rodrigues2, Carlos Vieira Andrade Junior3, Renata G Soares4, Mario Vianna Vettore5. 1. Faculty of Dentistry, Estácio de Sá University, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Electronic address: luciogoncalves@yahoo.com.br. 2. Faculty of Dentistry, Estácio de Sá University, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Veiga de Almeida University, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 3. Faculty of Dentistry, Estácio de Sá University, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Department of Health, Dentistry Division, Southwest State University of Bahia, Jequié, Bahia, Brazil. 4. Faculty of Dentistry, Estácio de Sá University, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 5. Unit of Dental Public Health, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review aimed to compare the effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine for root canal disinfection during root canal therapy. METHODS: A literature search for clinical trials was made on the PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Knowledge, SCOPUS, and Science Direct databases and in the reference lists of the identified articles up to January 2015. Quality assessment of the selected studies was performed according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. RESULTS: One clinical trial and 4 randomized clinical trials were selected from the 172 articles initially identified. There was heterogeneity in the laboratory methods used to assess the root canal disinfection as well as in the concentrations of the irrigants used. Therefore, meta-analysis was not performed. Two studies reported effective and similar reductions in bacterial levels for both irrigants. Sodium hypochlorite was more effective than chlorhexidine in reducing microorganisms in 1 study, and another reported opposite findings. Both root irrigants were ineffective in eliminating endotoxins from necrotic pulp root canals in 1 study. Trial design and information regarding randomization procedures were not clearly described in the clinical trials. No study compared laboratory results with clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on this topic is scarce, and the findings of studies were not consistent. Additional randomized clinical trials using clinical outcomes to compare the use of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine during root canal therapy are needed.
INTRODUCTION: This systematic review aimed to compare the effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine for root canal disinfection during root canal therapy. METHODS: A literature search for clinical trials was made on the PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Knowledge, SCOPUS, and Science Direct databases and in the reference lists of the identified articles up to January 2015. Quality assessment of the selected studies was performed according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. RESULTS: One clinical trial and 4 randomized clinical trials were selected from the 172 articles initially identified. There was heterogeneity in the laboratory methods used to assess the root canal disinfection as well as in the concentrations of the irrigants used. Therefore, meta-analysis was not performed. Two studies reported effective and similar reductions in bacterial levels for both irrigants. Sodium hypochlorite was more effective than chlorhexidine in reducing microorganisms in 1 study, and another reported opposite findings. Both root irrigants were ineffective in eliminating endotoxins from necrotic pulp root canals in 1 study. Trial design and information regarding randomization procedures were not clearly described in the clinical trials. No study compared laboratory results with clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on this topic is scarce, and the findings of studies were not consistent. Additional randomized clinical trials using clinical outcomes to compare the use of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine during root canal therapy are needed.
Authors: José Javier Martín-de-Llano; Manuel Mata; Santiago Peydró; Amando Peydró; Carmen Carda Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Shurooq Zakariya Albaghdadi; Jenan Bader Altaher; Hana Drobiova; Radhika G Bhardwaj; Maribasappa Karched Journal: Front Oral Health Date: 2021-10-08