Effect of Chelating Solutions on the Microhardness of Root Canal Lumen Dentin

Introduction: The greatest reduction in microhardness of the most superficial layer of dentin of the root canal lumen is desired. The use of chelating agents during biomechanical preparation of root canals removes smear layer, increasing the access of the irrigant into the dentin tubules to allow adequate disinfection, and also reduces dentin microhardness, facilitating the action of endodontic instruments. This study evaluated the effect of different chelating solutions on the microhardness of the most superficial dentin layer from the root canal lumen. Methods: Thirty-five recently extracted single-rooted maxillary central incisors were instrumented, and the roots were longitudinally sectioned in a mesiodistal direction to expose the entire canal extension. The specimens were distributed in seven groups according to the final irrigation: 15% EDTA, 10% citric acid, 5% malic acid, 5% acetic acid, apple vinegar, 10% sodium citrate, and control (no irrigation). A standardized volume of 50 mu L of each chelating solution was used for 5 minutes. Dentin microhardness was measured with a Knoop indenter under a 10-g load and a 15-second dwell time. Data were analyzed statistically by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer multiple-comparison test at 5% significance level. Results: EDTA and citric acid had the greatest overall effect, causing a sharp decrease in dentin microhardness without a significant difference (p > .05) from each other. However, both chelators differed significantly from the other solutions (p < .001). Sodium citrate and deionized water were similar to each other (p > .05) and did not affect dentin microhardness. Apple vinegar, acetic acid, and malic acid were similar to each other (p > .05) and presented intermediate results. Conclusion: Except for sodium citrate, all tested chelating solutions reduced microhardness of the most superficial root canal dentin layer. EDTA and citric acid were the most efficient. (J Endod 2011;37:358-362)