• Users Online: 127
  • 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 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 180-183

Comparative evaluation of N-acetylcysteine and chlorhexidine as final irrigation on the push-out bond strength of different sealers: An in vitro study


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Al-Badar Dental College and Hospital, Kalaburagi, Karnataka, India

Date of Submission21-Mar-2022
Date of Decision07-May-2022
Date of Acceptance16-May-2022
Date of Web Publication30-Sep-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Kiran Ghatole
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Al-Badar Dental College and Hospital, Kalaburagi - 585 102, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/endo.endo_81_22

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Aim: Using N acetyl cysteine (NAC) and Chlorhexidine as final irrigants, the study aims to examine the push out bond strength of distinct sealers.
Materials and Methods: Access and biomechanical preparation were done on decoronated 80 single-rooted teeth. Canals were alternatively irrigated using 5ml of 5.25% NaOCl and 5ml of 17% EDTA solution during instrumentation. On the basis of final irrigation procedure, the samples are divided into two groups: Group 1 – NAC and Group 2 – 2% Chlorhexidine. Using paper points, canals were dried and subdivided depending on the sealers used, Group 1A and 2A- AH plus and 1B and 2B- BioRoot RCS. Teeth were obturated and middle root sections were tested for push-out bond strength using universal testing equipment. Statistical analysis was done.
Results: NAC with AH-plus sealer had the maximum push-out strength, whereas Chlorhexidine with BioRoot RCS sealer had the lowest.
Conclusion: NAC increases the bond strength of the obturating materials as the final irrigant. NAC can be considered as a final irrigant for endodontic therapy.

Keywords: Antibacterial, chlorhexidine, pushout, sealer


How to cite this article:
Ghatole K, Indi S, Diwanji P, Janavathi, Hambire A, Thimwala A. Comparative evaluation of N-acetylcysteine and chlorhexidine as final irrigation on the push-out bond strength of different sealers: An in vitro study. Endodontology 2022;34:180-3

How to cite this URL:
Ghatole K, Indi S, Diwanji P, Janavathi, Hambire A, Thimwala A. Comparative evaluation of N-acetylcysteine and chlorhexidine as final irrigation on the push-out bond strength of different sealers: An in vitro study. Endodontology [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Nov 30];34:180-3. Available from: https://www.endodontologyonweb.org/text.asp?2022/34/3/180/357704




  Introduction Top


Cleaning, shaping as well as disinfection of the root canal are all critical components of successful endodontic treatment. It is done by chemomechanical preparation to remove germs and their by-products from the canal.[1]

Regardless of the kind of instrument and instrumentation method used, this procedure might result in the formation of smear layer, which is caused by the burnishing and translocating of the superficial dentin wall components. Obturation materials may not adhere completely to the canal surfaces if the root canal fillings and root canal walls are not perfectly aligned.[2] To eliminate the smear layer, irrigant solutions are essential. There are several solutions with varying concentrations and compositions.

In endodontics, NaOCl (Sodium Hypochlorite) is the most often utilized irrigant which dissolves the organic components of the smear layer, as well as necrotic tissue.[3] The most common demineralizing agent is ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Due to its significant chelating impact on mineralized tissues, it is essential in cleaning tubules that were clogged during instrumentation.[4] Due to its propensity to coagulate and precipitate bacterial intracellular components, chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) exerts a bactericidal effect and is suggested as a final irrigant.[5]

On endodontic, pathogenic bacteria, N-acetylcysteine (NAC) exerts an antibacterial property. NAC is an antioxidant with thiol groups that efficiently reduces extracellular polysaccharide synthesis, disintegrating mature biofilms and decreasing bacterial adherence in the same way that a mucolytic drug does.[6]

Irrigants with different compositions, concentrations, and exposure times may be able to change the surface of the root dentin, promote structural changes (lower the Ca/P ratio), and change surface hardness and roughness, among other variables. Different irrigant solutions may affect its interaction with the sealer utilized.[7] Consequently, the root canal walls and obturating materials may not adhere properly.

AH-Plus® (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) is an epoxy-amine resin-based two-component paste root canal sealer. There have been several studies that have relied on it as the reference and gold standard.[8]

RCS BioRoot is hydraulic tricalcium silicate-based powder-liquid cement. It has good adhesion and antimicrobial properties.[9]

Dislodgement of filling material can be examined by performing push-out strength tests on treated root canal dentin. Compared to the micro tensile bond test, the push-out test results have less variability and is more consistent in stress distribution.[10] Thus, the goal of this study was to examine the push-out strength of endodontic sealers utilized for teeth obturation after using final root canal irrigants such as NAC and chlorhexidine.


  Materials and Methods Top


The present study was conducted after obtaining institutional ethical clearance (Ref No: IEC/202021/29). The research included eighty single-rooted extracted teeth. Teeth extracted mainly due to periodontal problems were selected. The study included teeth with completely formed apices and straight canals, but teeth with curved roots, caries, cracks, open apices, or past root canal procedures were eliminated. The teeth were properly cleansed, disinfected, and preserved in distilled water until use. With a high-speed diamond disc and water coolant, the teeth were decoronated to create 13 mm-long root segments. K-file (Mani, Tochigi, Japan) size #10 was used to achieve canal patency. ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) was utilized to prepare the root canal in a crown-down manner as per the label instructions, utilizing a gentle in-and-out motion up to F4 size (#40/0.06).

During instrumentation, canals were irrigated passively using 5 ml of 5.25% NaOCl solution (Vishal Private Limited, India) and 5 ml of 17% EDTA solution (SmearClear; Synbron Endo, Orange, CA, United States) alternately with 30 gauge close-ended single side vented needle (Trident, India) placed passively at 1 mm short of the working length. Saline was used in between the irrigants to avoid their interactions.

Samples were then randomly divided into two groups: Group 1– NAC -NAC solution at 200 mg/mL concentration was freshly made by dissolving 0.2 g in sterile distilled water of 1 mL as described. A volume of 3 ml of NAC solution was used as the final irrigant.

Group 2 – About 3 ml of 2% chlorhexidine (Vishal Dentocare Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India) was utilized as the final irrigant.

Paper points were utilized to dry the canals until they seemed completely dry. Sealers were mixed as per the label instructions. Based on the sealer used, the groups were subdivided into subgroups 1A and 2A-AH-plus and 1B and 2B-BioRoot RCS. Obturation with F4 gutta-percha and incubation at 37°C for 1 week and 100% relative humidity allowed the sealer time to harden.

Push-out bond strength test

The long axis of the root canal was perpendicularly cooled with freshwater, while a circular diamond disc sectioned each root block horizontally at low speed. Two sections each having 2 mm thickness were cut at 3, 7, mm from the coronal part of the root. Specimens were mounted in a custom-made loading fixture. Using a plunger with a diameter of 1.2 mm and a speed of 1 mm/min, the specimens were put on a metal slap with a center hole for free movement. The plunger tip was put in such a way that it only came into touch with the test material. The test was repeated until the bond was failure completely. Megapascal was the maximum force applied to materials at dislodgment time.

Statistical analysis

One-way ANOVA was used to determine standard deviation and mean for both groups and subgroups. Groups were compared using Tukey post hoc test with the significance level at P < 0.05 [Table 1] and [Table 2].
Table 1: Mean and standard deviation for both the groups and subgroups P value e by using one way ANOVA

Click here to view
Table 2: P value using Tukey post hoc test to compare two subgroups

Click here to view



  Results Top


It was shown that Group 1-NAC had a stronger bond than Group 2. The result of subgroups showed AH-Plus sealer having better bond strength than BioRoot RCS sealer in both the groups.


  Discussion Top


Eradication of bacteria from the root canal by endodontic therapy is challenging due to biofilm deposition on the dentin walls and the root canal anatomy. Thus, one of the main objectives is to find effective methods for limiting the occurrence of microorganisms.[11] Prevention of coronal leakage into periradicular areas is also of prime importance to avoid reinfection. Hence, antibacterial irrigants are used to reduce biofilm and enhance adhesion to the root canal.[12]

Extracted teeth were used in this study as closely simulate the clinical situations. As the bond strength remained unaffected with distilled water, it was used to keep the collected teeth.[13]

Berber et al. showed no differences between different NaOCl concentrations in lowering Enterococcus faecalis in root canal lumen, but only with greater concentrations can disinfect dentinal tubules using sodium hypochlorite, which is utilized as an irrigant for its antibacterial effect.[14] The best method for removing the smear layer is EDTA.[15] Dogan et al. showed EDTA decreases the surface energy of the root canal wall which may provide a required dentin substrate for the material adhesion.[16] Hence, alternate use of sodium hypochlorite and EDTA irrigation was followed in this study.

CHX gluconate is a biguanide disinfectant with wide antibacterial substantive action against E. faecalis and other resistant bacteria.[17] It can be adsorbed on hydroxyapatite surfaces and gradually released. It is also efficient against yeasts and bacteria of Gram +ve and Gram −ve types.[18] However, Portenier et al. showed dentin inhibits the antibacterial activity of chlorhexidine.[19] Hence, a new irrigant NAC was used in the study as a final irrigant.

NAC is an amino acid derivative of L-cysteine, a thiol-containing antioxidant with antibacterial properties. It destructs the disulfide bonds in proteins damaging the bacterial proteins. It is an anti-inflammatory nonantibiotic drug.[20] The antibacterial activity of NAC has remained unchanged with the presence of dentin, according to Quah et al., which is an additional benefit over chlorhexidine.[21]

NAC was shown to have higher bond strength than chlorhexidine in this study. This could be because NAC reduces extracellular polysaccharide production which in turn increases the obturating material adhesion to the root dentin walls.[22] Abbott PV showed chlorhexidine has less soluble substances which tend to leave residues of the canal walls affecting the sealing.[23]

The bond strength of NAC with AH-Plus sealer was greater than NAC with bioceramic sealer. According to Amin et al., AH-plus possesses acceptable physicochemical properties, including low disintegration and solubility, long-term dimensional stability, and excellent apical seal ability and adhesion, all of which contribute to increased bond strength.[24] Barbosa AFS also showed that resin-based sealers had better root canal dentin retention and stronger push-out strength in comparison to other endodontic sealers.[25] AH-plus sealer showed better bond strength than BioRoot RCS when chlorhexidine was used final rinse. This might be due to the epoxy resin's covalent bonds with the amino groups of the dentinal collagen, resulting in strong bonds, whereas BioRoot RCS has micromechanical interaction and forms tag-like structures.[26],[27] The “mineral infiltration zone's” chemical interaction creates a weak bond, which might lead to low bond strength. The results are consistent with Neelakantan et al. and Fisher et al.[28],[29]

The bond strength was evaluated by a push-out technique as it is reliable, precise, and convenient for statistical analysis. In this study, 2-mm thick specimens were used as the probability of nonuniform stress would be removed.[30]


  Conclusion Top


N-acetylcysteine may be utilized as the final endodontic irrigant on the basis of the findings of this in vitro study, which has few limitations.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Narayanan LL, Vaishnavi C. Endodontic microbiology. J Conserv Dent 2010;13:233-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
2.
Violich DR, Chandler NP. The smear layer in endodontics – A review. Int Endod J 2010;43:2-15.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Babaji P, Jagtap K, Lau H, Bansal N, Thajuraj S, Sondhi P. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial effect of herbal root canal irrigants (Morinda citrifolia, Azadirachta indica, Aloe vera) with sodium hypochlorite: An in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2016;6:196-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Bindra SP, Chhabra A, Damanpreet, Garg N, Jindal V, Sharma S. A scanning electron microscope evaluation of smear layer removal from root canals prepared by manual or rotary instrumentation using three different irrigating systems: An in vitro study. Endodontol 2016;28:171-5.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Verma D, Taneja S, Kumari M. Efficacy of different irrigation regimes on the push-out bond strength of various resin-based sealers at different root levels: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2018;21:125-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
6.
Bhasin P, Sharma M, Bindal D, Tomar D, Sarin A, Sharma N. An in vitro evaluation of antimicrobial effects of three different root canal irrigating solutions against enterococcus faecalis and streptococcus mutans. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20:221-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Misuriya A, Bhardwaj A, Bhardwaj A, Aggrawal S, Kumar PP, Gajjarepu S. A comparative antimicrobial analysis of various root canal irrigating solutions on endodontic pathogens: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15:153-60.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Gupta PR, Aggarwal SD, Kshirsagar SP, Bhargava K, Rai V, Chawla M. Comparative evaluation of push-out bond strength of resin-based sealer and mineral trioxide aggregate-based sealer after using normal saline and 2% chlorhexidine as a final irrigant: In vitro study. Endodontol 2016;28:32-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Torabinejad M, Parirokh M, Dummer PM. Mineral trioxide aggregate and other bioactive endodontic cements: An updated overview – Part II: Other clinical applications and complications. Int Endod J 2018;51:284-317.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Pane ES, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Critical evaluation of the push-out test for root canal filling materials. J Endod 2013;39:669-73.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Prada I, Micó-Muñoz P, Giner-Lluesma T, Micó-Martínez P, Collado-Castellano N, Manzano-Saiz A. Influence of microbiology on endodontic failure. Literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2019;24:e364-72.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Wu MK, van der Sluis LW, Wesselink PR. The capability of two hand instrumentation techniques to remove the inner layer of dentine in oval canals. Int Endod J 2003;36:218-24.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Perdigão J. Dentin bonding-variables related to the clinical situation and the substrate treatment. Dent Mater 2010;26:e24-37.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Berber VB, Gomes BP, Sena NT, Vianna ME, Ferraz CC, Zaia AA, et al. Efficacy of various concentrations of NaOCl and instrumentation techniques in reducing Enterococcus faecalis within root canals and dentinal tubules. Int Endod J 2006;39:10-7.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Turk T, Kaval ME, Şen BH. Evaluation of the smear layer removal and erosive capacity of EDTA, boric acid, citric acid and desy clean solutions: An in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2015;15:104.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Dogan Buzoglu H, Calt S, Gümüsderelioglu M. Evaluation of the surface free energy on root canal dentine walls treated with chelating agents and NaOCl. Int Endod J 2007;40:18-24.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Mohammadi Z. Chlorhexidine gluconate, its properties and applications in endodontics. Iran Endod J 2008;2:113-25.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Ercan E, Ozekinci T, Atakul F, Gül K. Antibacterial activity of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite in infected root canal: In vivo study. J Endod 2004;30:84-7.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Portenier I, Haapasalo H, Orstavik D, Yamauchi M, Haapasalo M. Inactivation of the antibacterial activity of iodine potassium iodide and chlorhexidine digluconate against Enterococcus faecalis by dentin, dentin matrix, type-I collagen, and heat-killed microbial whole cells. J Endod 2002;28:634-7.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Olofsson AC, Hermansson M, Elwing H. N-acetyl-L-cysteine affects growth, extracellular polysaccharide production, and bacterial biofilm formation on solid surfaces. Appl Environ Microbiol 2003;69:4814-22.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Quah SY, Wu S, Lui JN, Sum CP, Tan KS. N-acetylcysteine inhibits growth and eradicates biofilm of Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod 2012;38:81-5.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Palaniswamy U, Lakkam SR, Arya S, Aravelli S. Effectiveness of N-acetyl cysteine, 2% chlorhexidine, and their combination as intracanal medicaments on Enterococcus faecalis biofilm. J Conserv Dent 2016;19:17-20.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
23.
Mohammadi Z, Abbott PV. The properties and applications of chlorhexidine in endodontics. Int Endod J 2009;42:288-302.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Amin SA, Seyam RS, El-Samman MA. The effect of prior calcium hydroxide intracanal placement on the bond strength of two calcium silicate-based and an epoxy resin-based endodontic sealer. J Endod 2012;38:696-9.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Trindade TF, Barbosa AF, Castro-Raucci LM, Silva-Sousa YT, Colucci V, Raucci-Neto W. Chlorhexidine and proanthocyanidin enhance the long-term bond strength of resin-based endodontic sealer. Braz Oral Res 2018;32:e44.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Donnermeyer D, Dornseifer P, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. The push-out bond strength of calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers. Head Face Med 2018;14:13.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Baranwal HC, Mittal N, Garg R, Yadav J, Rani P. Comparative evaluation of retreatability of bioceramic sealer (BioRoot RCS) and epoxy resin (AH Plus) sealer with two different retreatment files: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2021;24:88-93.  Back to cited text no. 27
  [Full text]  
28.
Fisher MA, Berzins DW, Bahcall JK. An in vitro comparison of bond strength of various obturation materials to root canal dentin using a push-out test design. J Endod 2007;33:856-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Neelakantan P, Sharma S, Shemesh H, Wesselink PR. Influence of irrigation sequence on the adhesion of root canal sealers to dentin: A fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and push-out bond strength analysis. J Endod 2015;41:1108-11.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Goracci C, Tavares AU, Fabianelli A, Monticelli F, Raffaelli O, Cardoso PC, et al. The adhesion between fiber posts and root canal walls: Comparison between microtensile and push-out bond strength measurements. Eur J Oral Sci 2004;112:353-61.  Back to cited text no. 30
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed326    
    Printed18    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded48    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]