Assessment of the Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Three Different Agents on Periodontally Compromised Tooth: An In Vitro Study.

Q3 Dentistry
Dhirendra Kumar Singh, B S Harsha Raj, Crystal Runa Soans, Akshitha Elango, Dinesh G Kamath, Fazil A Nasyam, Debasish Mishra
{"title":"Assessment of the Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Three Different Agents on Periodontally Compromised Tooth: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study.","authors":"Dhirendra Kumar Singh, B S Harsha Raj, Crystal Runa Soans, Akshitha Elango, Dinesh G Kamath, Fazil A Nasyam, Debasish Mishra","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3618","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the smear layer removal efficacy of three various agents on periodontally compromised tooth.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The current study included 75 molar teeth that were extracted due to periodontal disease. After that, 25 samples were randomly assigned using a simple random technique to the three different agent groups, group A: Scaling and root planing (SRP) and application of SofScale agent, group B: SRP and application of QMix agent, group C: SRP and application of MTAD agent. Using a diamond circular saw, the treated portions were divided into horizontal and vertical halves. All samples were viewed under Scanning Electron Microscope. Every tooth was focused at the coronal third, middle third, and apical third portion with a magnification of 1000×. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The smear layer removal efficacy was more in the QMix agent (3.06 ± <i>0.04</i>) group followed by MTAD agent (3.28 ± 0.09) and SofScale agent (4.14 ± <i>0.10</i>) group on the root surface. On intra group comparison, there was a statistically significant difference found in all the intra group agents with all the three levels. On inter group evaluation, at coronal third, there was no significant difference found between the different agents. There was a significant difference found between the different agents at middle and coronal third.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>On conclusion, the current investigation found that, the root surfaces treated with QMix shown a greater ability to remove smear layers compared to tooth surfaces treated with MTAD and SofScale agent.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Conventional therapies such as SRP effectively eliminate calculus, plaque, and necrosed cementum; nevertheless, they leave behind a smear layer that could impede normal healing. In an effort to overcome this, root conditioning agents were applied on the root surface to remove the smear layer. The traditional root conditioning agents such as citric acid have certain disadvantages, though, such as an acidic pH that could harm the root surface. As a result, researchers have been looking for biocompatible root conditioning treatments that are more effective. How to cite this article: Singh DK, BS Raj H, Soans CR, <i>et al</i>. Assessment of the Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Three Different Agents on Periodontally Compromised Tooth: An <i>In Vitr</i>o Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(2):156-159.</p>","PeriodicalId":35792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","volume":"25 2","pages":"156-159"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3618","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the smear layer removal efficacy of three various agents on periodontally compromised tooth.

Materials and methods: The current study included 75 molar teeth that were extracted due to periodontal disease. After that, 25 samples were randomly assigned using a simple random technique to the three different agent groups, group A: Scaling and root planing (SRP) and application of SofScale agent, group B: SRP and application of QMix agent, group C: SRP and application of MTAD agent. Using a diamond circular saw, the treated portions were divided into horizontal and vertical halves. All samples were viewed under Scanning Electron Microscope. Every tooth was focused at the coronal third, middle third, and apical third portion with a magnification of 1000×. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed.

Results: The smear layer removal efficacy was more in the QMix agent (3.06 ± 0.04) group followed by MTAD agent (3.28 ± 0.09) and SofScale agent (4.14 ± 0.10) group on the root surface. On intra group comparison, there was a statistically significant difference found in all the intra group agents with all the three levels. On inter group evaluation, at coronal third, there was no significant difference found between the different agents. There was a significant difference found between the different agents at middle and coronal third.

Conclusion: On conclusion, the current investigation found that, the root surfaces treated with QMix shown a greater ability to remove smear layers compared to tooth surfaces treated with MTAD and SofScale agent.

Clinical significance: Conventional therapies such as SRP effectively eliminate calculus, plaque, and necrosed cementum; nevertheless, they leave behind a smear layer that could impede normal healing. In an effort to overcome this, root conditioning agents were applied on the root surface to remove the smear layer. The traditional root conditioning agents such as citric acid have certain disadvantages, though, such as an acidic pH that could harm the root surface. As a result, researchers have been looking for biocompatible root conditioning treatments that are more effective. How to cite this article: Singh DK, BS Raj H, Soans CR, et al. Assessment of the Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Three Different Agents on Periodontally Compromised Tooth: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(2):156-159.

评估三种不同制剂对牙周受损牙齿的涂膜层去除效果:体外研究
目的:本研究的目的是评估三种不同制剂对牙周受损牙齿的涂抹层去除效果:本研究包括 75 颗因牙周病而拔除的磨牙。然后,采用简单随机技术将 25 个样本随机分配到三个不同的药剂组,A 组:洗牙和根面平整(SRP)并使用 SofScale 药剂;B 组:SRP 并使用 QMix 药剂;C 组:SRP 并使用 MTAD 药剂:C 组:SRP 和 MTAD 药剂。使用金刚石圆锯将处理过的部分分成水平和垂直两半。在扫描电子显微镜下观察所有样本。每颗牙齿的冠状三分之一、中间三分之一和根尖三分之一部分都被聚焦,放大倍数为 1000 倍。记录数据并进行统计分析:结果:在牙根表面,QMix 药剂(3.06 ± 0.04)组的涂抹层去除率更高,其次是 MTAD 药剂(3.28 ± 0.09)和 SofScale 药剂(4.14 ± 0.10)组。在组内比较中,发现所有组内制剂在三个级别上都有显著的统计学差异。在组间评价中,在冠状三分之一处,不同制剂之间没有发现明显差异。结论:总之,本次调查发现,与使用 MTAD 和 SofScale 药剂的牙面相比,使用 QMix 处理的牙根表面去除涂抹层的能力更强:传统疗法(如 SRP)能有效去除牙结石、牙菌斑和坏死的骨水泥,但会留下污垢层,妨碍正常愈合。为了克服这一问题,人们在牙根表面涂抹牙根调节剂,以去除涂抹层。不过,柠檬酸等传统的牙根调节剂也有一定的缺点,比如酸性 pH 值会伤害牙根表面。因此,研究人员一直在寻找更有效的生物相容性牙根护理剂。如何引用本文:Singh DK, BS Raj H, Soans CR, et al:体外研究。J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(2):156-159.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
174
期刊介绍: The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice (JCDP), is a peer-reviewed, open access MEDLINE indexed journal. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.thejcdp.com. The journal allows free access (open access) to its contents. Articles with clinical relevance will be given preference for publication. The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, rare and novel case reports, and clinical techniques. Manuscripts are invited from all specialties of dentistry i.e., conservative dentistry and endodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthodontics, oral medicine and radiology, oral pathology, oral surgery, orodental diseases, pediatric dentistry, implantology, periodontics, clinical aspects of public health dentistry, and prosthodontics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信