Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 237
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 166-170

Comparison of the effect of three different irrigants on the contact angle of an epoxy resin sealer with intraradicular dentin

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Army College of Dental Sciences, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Kitu Sheoran
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Army College of Dental Sciences, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 500 087
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: Nil., Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/1658-5984.163627

Rights and Permissions

Aim: To evaluate the contact angle between epoxy resin sealer and dentin treated with different irrigant solutions both in the presence and absence of smear layer. Materials and Methods: Seventy human mandibularfirst premolars were used and 140 longitudinal dentin slices were obtained from them. Each sample was irrigated with of 3% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), simulating the irrigation used during the chemomechanical preparation and then washed with 10ml of distilled water (DW). The samples were then divided into seven groups of 20 samples each. Group 1:NaOCl + DW, Group 2: QMix + DW, Group 3: 0.1% octenidine hydrochloride + DW, Group 4:Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) + DW + NaOCl + DW, Group 5: EDTA + DW + QMix + DW, Group 6: EDTA + DW + 0.1% Octenidine Hydrochloride + DW, and Group 7(control): DW. The contact angle between AH Plus and the samples was measured using Rame Hart Goniometer followed by statistical analysis of data. Results: Values of contact angle was least when samples were treated with QMix followed by treatment with 0.1% Octenidine Hydrochloride followed by 3% NaOCl. Removal of smear layer reduced contact angles in all cases except when samples were treated with 3% NaOCl. Results were statistically significant when 3% NaOCl was compared to 0.1% Octenidine Hydrochloride and QMix (P = 0.034). Statistically significant difference was seen before and after removal of smear layer for 3% NaOCl and 0.1% Octenidine Hydrochloride. (P = 0.003). Conclusion: Qmix is the irrigant of choice, but 0.1% octenidine hydrochloride may be recommended as a useful irrigant after further research.

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 Downloaded862    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal