Efficient removal of 2,6-xylidine precipitate using different agitation protocols: An field emission scanning electron microscopic study.

BACKGROUND

Any solution of chemical nature when combined will result in the formation of a precipitate, which in the root canal system will interfere with the hermetic seal. In clinical practice presence of any precipitate, especially carcinogenic in nature, should be eliminated.

AIM

To evaluate whether final irrigation with different agitation protocols will remove the precipitate formed following lidocaine hydrochloride and sodium hypochlorite combination at the coronal, middle, and apical-root thirds.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-four uniradicular teeth were standardized at 17 mm. All specimens were injected with 2% lidocaine hydrochloride and 2.5% sodium hypochlorite, followed by mechanical instrumentation using rotary files. Further, specimens were arbitrarily divided into four groups ( = 11) based on the final irrigation protocol: Group 1: No irrigation; Group 2: Manual irrigation; Group 3: Mechanical irrigation; Group 4: Ultrasonic irrigation. Samples were sectioned and Field Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopic (FESEM) analysis of the canal wall was done at coronal, middle, and apical thirds.

RESULTS

FESEM images revealed occluded dentinal tubules with the presence of precipitate seen in all-thirds of each specimen.

CONCLUSION

No irrigation protocol was successful in removing the precipitate formed; but when compared ultrasonic irrigation had the least precipitate seen at-coronal,-middle and apical thirds.