Medical and Dental Consultantsí Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 669   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 697-703

Chitosan: A natural substitute of EDTA solution for final irrigation in endodontics treatment

Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hama University, Hama, Syria

Correspondence Address:
Dr. M Sarkees
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hama University, Hama
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_587_19

Rights and Permissions

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the quantity of the chelated calcium ions and the smear layer removal efficiency after root canal final irrigation with three different solutions.Materials and Methods: Forty-five teeth were instrumented with rotary-files, then randomly divided into 3 equal groups (n = 15) depending on the final irrigation solution; group I: 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), group II: 0.2% chitosan, and group III: 10% trisodium citrate. According to the time of application, every group was divided into 3 subgroups (1 min, 5 min, and 24 h). The quantification analysis of chelated calcium ions was performed by flame atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS). Then, the presence of smear layer was examined by splitting the samples longitudinally and using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to examine coronal, middle, and apical root canal levels. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was used for the evaluation of treatment effect. Kruskal–Wallis test was executed to detect a significant difference between groups, while Mann–Whitney U test has determined the difference between each two groups for smear layer.Results: Both 17% EDTA and 0.2% chitosan had not been statistically significant difference for smear layer removal efficiency and observed calcium ion concentrations. Although, they were more efficient of 10% trisodium citrate with a significant difference (P < 0.05).Conclusion: The application time of the chelators' solutions must not exceed 5 min to completely remove smear layer, and 0.2% chitosan is a natural substitute for 17% EDTA with a safety application for 24 h.

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 Downloaded213    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal