• Users Online: 2023
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 32  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 209-215

Comparative evaluation and efficacy of ethylenediaminetetracetic acid, carbonated water, and chloroquick as final irrigant in smear layer removal using scanning electron microscope

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saraswati Dental College, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Raju Chauhan
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saraswati Dental College, Tiwariganj, Faizabad Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/endo.endo_69_20

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of EDTA, carbonated water, and chloroquick in smear layer removal at apical, middle, and coronal third of the root canal. Materials and Methods: Eighty freshly extracted human mandibular premolars were used for the study The teeth were decoronated to obtain standardized working length of 14 mm. All samples were instrumented with ProTaper gold till apical size #F3 with 3% NaOCl irrigation between each file. The samples were randomly divided into four groups (n = 20) on the basis of final irrigant used: Group I: 17% ethylenediaminetetracetic acid (EDTA), Group II: carbonated water, Group III: chloroquick solution, and Group IV: normal saline (negative control). The samples were then split into longitudinal sections and observed under scanning electron microscope (SEM) at apical, middle, and coronal levels for the amount of smear layer present. Statistical Analysis: Data were analyzed statistically using Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance followed by the Mann–Whitney U-test and Chi-square test. The level of significance was set at 0.05. Results: The present study showed that all the three experimental irrigants removed the smear layer equally at the middle and coronal third. At the apical third, Group III (Chloroquick solution) showed the least smear layer score (2.20 ± 0.41) followed by Group I (17% EDTA) (2.35 ± 0.49) and then Group II (Carbonated water) (2.45 ± 0.51). The P value was found to be < 0.001. Conclusion: Chloroquick is more effective in smear layer removal in apical third followed by 17% EDTA and then carbonated water when used as final irrigant. No statistically significant result was found in smear layer removal among the three groups at coronal and middle third of the root canal.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded26    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal