Smear layer removal and antimicrobial efficacy of chitosan as a root canal irrigant: a systematic review of in-vitro studies.

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Odontology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1007/s10266-024-00999-x
Karthikeyan Anbalagan, Amit Jena, Saumyakanta Mohanty, Rashmirekha Mallick, Govind Shashirekha, Priyanka Sarangi
{"title":"Smear layer removal and antimicrobial efficacy of chitosan as a root canal irrigant: a systematic review of in-vitro studies.","authors":"Karthikeyan Anbalagan, Amit Jena, Saumyakanta Mohanty, Rashmirekha Mallick, Govind Shashirekha, Priyanka Sarangi","doi":"10.1007/s10266-024-00999-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review was designed to answer the following question: Does chitosan provide better smear layer removal and antimicrobial efficacy than other root canal irrigants? A literature search was done using electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EBSCO host, Grey Literature Report, and Open Grey from inception to June 18, 2024. The reference lists of included articles were also hand-searched. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies' eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and performed data extraction. Two reviewers independently evaluated the risk of bias in the selected studies. The search retrieved 2330 studies. After analysis, 36 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included, with 19 involving smear layer removal, 16 involving antibacterial efficacy, and 1 involving both. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was medium. Chitosan removed the smear layer more effectively than citric acid and acetic acid, similar to MTAD and Qmix, with conflicting results against EDTA. In addition, chitosan demonstrated comparable antibacterial efficacy to chlorhexidine, propolis, and photodynamic therapy but was less effective than sodium hypochlorite. Based on available evidence, it was found that chitosan provided better smear layer removal and antimicrobial efficacy than most root canal irrigants compared in this systematic review. There was substantial heterogeneity in the methodology of included studies. As a result, this review highly recommends further research using standardized methods to assess the effectiveness of chitosan as a root canal irrigant in in-vitro studies to validate its clinical use.</p>","PeriodicalId":19390,"journal":{"name":"Odontology","volume":" ","pages":"61-79"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Odontology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-024-00999-x","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This systematic review was designed to answer the following question: Does chitosan provide better smear layer removal and antimicrobial efficacy than other root canal irrigants? A literature search was done using electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EBSCO host, Grey Literature Report, and Open Grey from inception to June 18, 2024. The reference lists of included articles were also hand-searched. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies' eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and performed data extraction. Two reviewers independently evaluated the risk of bias in the selected studies. The search retrieved 2330 studies. After analysis, 36 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included, with 19 involving smear layer removal, 16 involving antibacterial efficacy, and 1 involving both. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was medium. Chitosan removed the smear layer more effectively than citric acid and acetic acid, similar to MTAD and Qmix, with conflicting results against EDTA. In addition, chitosan demonstrated comparable antibacterial efficacy to chlorhexidine, propolis, and photodynamic therapy but was less effective than sodium hypochlorite. Based on available evidence, it was found that chitosan provided better smear layer removal and antimicrobial efficacy than most root canal irrigants compared in this systematic review. There was substantial heterogeneity in the methodology of included studies. As a result, this review highly recommends further research using standardized methods to assess the effectiveness of chitosan as a root canal irrigant in in-vitro studies to validate its clinical use.

壳聚糖作为根管冲洗剂的涂膜层去除和抗菌功效:体外研究的系统回顾。
本系统综述旨在回答以下问题:壳聚糖是否比其他根管冲洗剂具有更好的涂抹层去除效果和抗菌功效?从开始到 2024 年 6 月 18 日,我们使用 PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、EBSCO host、Grey Literature Report 和 Open Grey 等电子数据库进行了文献检索。此外,还对纳入文章的参考文献目录进行了人工检索。两名审稿人根据纳入和排除标准独立评估研究的资格,并进行数据提取。两名审稿人独立评估了所选研究的偏倚风险。搜索共检索到 2330 项研究。经过分析,有 36 项研究符合资格标准并被纳入,其中 19 项涉及涂片层去除,16 项涉及抗菌效果,1 项涉及两者。纳入研究的总体偏倚风险为中等。壳聚糖去除涂抹层的效果优于柠檬酸和醋酸,与MTAD和Qmix相似,但与EDTA的结果存在冲突。此外,壳聚糖的抗菌效果与洗必泰、蜂胶和光动力疗法相当,但不如次氯酸钠有效。根据现有证据,我们发现壳聚糖比本系统综述中比较的大多数根管冲洗剂具有更好的涂抹层去除效果和抗菌功效。纳入研究的方法存在很大的异质性。因此,本综述强烈建议进一步开展研究,使用标准化的方法在体外研究中评估壳聚糖作为根管冲洗剂的有效性,以验证其临床用途。
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
Odontology
Odontology 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
4.00%
发文量
91
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal Odontology covers all disciplines involved in the fields of dentistry and craniofacial research, including molecular studies related to oral health and disease. Peer-reviewed articles cover topics ranging from research on human dental pulp, to comparisons of analgesics in surgery, to analysis of biofilm properties of dental plaque.
×
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