Introduction
Materials and methods
Research question
Search strategy
Eligibility criteria
Data extraction
-
Name of first author
-
Year of the study published
-
Study design
-
Sample size (n)
-
Irrigants used
-
Outcome(s)
-
Measurement outcome(s)
-
Main findings
Results
Author | Year | Study design | Sample size (n) | Irrigants used | Outcome(s) | Measurement outcome(s) | Main findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Deari et al. [33] | 2019 | Blinded, randomized in vitro study on dentine disks of human third molars | 10 | 12% Na2HEDP | Smear layer removal | Laser microscopy | Smear layer removal by EDTA and HEDP was affected by the pH values of the aqueous solution. EDTA was a stronger chelator than HEDP |
15% Na4HEDP | |||||||
17% Na2EDTA | |||||||
19% Na4EDTA | |||||||
PBS (negative control group) | |||||||
Girard et al. [5] | 2005 | Blinded, randomized in vitro study on extracted single-rooted human premolars | 16 | Aqueous gel consisting of 2% alginate, 3% aerosil, 10% Tween 80 and 18% HEBP | Prevention of smear layer during root canal preparation | SEM | The examined HEBP gel had superior smear layer preventing ability compared with the paste-type chelator products containing EDTA and hydrogen peroxide available into the market |
Two commercial paste-type chelators containing EDTA and peroxide (RC-Prep and Glyde) | |||||||
1% NaOCl without the use of a chelator (positive controls) | |||||||
Kfir et al. [34] | 2020 | Blinded, randomized in vitro study on extracted single-rooted human teeth | 20 | 3% NaOCl + Dual Rinse HEDP | Cleanliness (amount of smear layer and debris) | SEM | Cleanliness of the two irrigant solutions was not significantly different |
3%NaOCl + 17%EDTA | |||||||
Saline solution (negative control group) | |||||||
Lottanti et al. [17] | 2009 | Randomized in vitro study on extracted single-rooted human premolars | 12 | 2% NaOCl + 18% HEBP | Smear layer removal | SEM | The tested decalcifying agents were all able to remove or prevent the smear layer formation |
1% NaOCl + 2.25% PAA | |||||||
1% NaOCl + 17% EDTA [positive control] | |||||||
1% NaOCl + water (negative control) | |||||||
Paqué et al. [13] | 2012 | Blinded, randomized in vitro study on extracted human mandibular molars | 30 | 2.5% NaOCl + 9% HEBP | Hard-tissue debris removal | Micro-CT | The use of 2.5% NaOCl alone induced more significantly accumulated hard-tissue debris than 2.5% + 9% HEBP |
2.5% NaOCl + pure water | |||||||
Patil et al. [35] | 2018 | Blinded, randomized in vitro study on extracted single-rooted human mandibular premolars | 10 | Freshly mixed Chloroquick solution (18% etidronic acid + 5% NaOCl) | Smear layer removal in apical third of root canal | SEM | Sequential use of 5.25% NaOCl + 17% EDTA (both solution added with surfactant) was more efficient than MTAD and Chloroquick in the smear layer removal from the apical third |
5.25% NaOCl with surfactant + 17% EDTA with surfactant | |||||||
Freshly mixed BioPure MTAD | |||||||
Normal saline (negative control group) | |||||||
Ulusoy et al. [36] | 2018 | Randomized study on human extracted maxillary anterior teeth | 12 | 2.5% NaOCl + 18%HEBP | Organic tissue removal | Weight by a precision balance | Activation by XP-endo Finisher caused the greatest weight tissue loss in the experimental solutions compared with PUI activation NaOCl + HEBP mixture plus XP-endo Finisher resulted an effective irrigation protocol for removing simulated organic tissue from artificial internal root resorptions cavities |
2.5% NaOCl | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl + 17% EDTA | |||||||
Distillated water |
Author | Year | Study design | Sample size [n] | Irrigants used | Outcome(s) | Measurement outcome[s] | Main findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arias-Moliz et al. [38] | 2014 | Randomized in vitro study on extracted human maxillary premolars | 5 | 2.5% NaOCl + 9% HEBP | Antimicrobial activity on the growing of Enterococcus faecalis biofilms | CLSM and the live/dead technique | HEBP did not alter the ability of NaOCl to inhibit E. faecalis grown in biofilms and into the dentinal tubules |
2.5% NaOCl | |||||||
9% HEBP | |||||||
Distillated water (control group) | |||||||
Arias-Moliz et al. [39] | 2015 | Randomized in vitro study on extracted human molars | 5 | 2.5% NaOCl + 9% HEBP | Antimicrobial effect on the growing of Enterococcus faecalis biofilms | CLSM and the live/dead technique | NaOCl alone or combined with HEBP was the most effective irrigant solution in disrupting and killing E. faecalis biofilms |
2.5% NaOCl | |||||||
2% PAA | |||||||
2% CHX | |||||||
Distillated water (control group) | |||||||
Arias-Moliz et al. [27] | 2016 | Randomized in vitro study on dentine disks of extracted human teeth | 5 | 1% NaOCl + 9% HEBP | Influence of dentine powder on the concentration, pH, and antimicrobial activity of irrigant solutions | CLSM and the live/dead technique | Dentine powder negatively impacted the available chlorine and antimicrobial activity of 1% NaOCl, 2.5% NaOCl, and 1% NaOCl/HEBP; yet, it did not influence the antimicrobial activity of 2.5% NaOCl/HEBP after a 3-min contact time against E. faecalis biofilms |
2.5% NaOCl + 9% HEBP | |||||||
1% NaOCl | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl | |||||||
9% HEBP | |||||||
Distillated water (control group) | |||||||
Borges et al. [44] | 2022 | In vitro study on dentine discs of extracted human teeth | 9 | 2% and 5% NaOCl + HEDP | Antibiofilm potency (biofilm removal and disruption, rate of biofilm loss and disruption, bubble formation) against dual-species biofilm (Streptococcus oralis J22 and Actinomyces naeslundii T14V-J1) | OCT | Higher NaOCl concentrations were associated with a major biofilm removal and disruption and bubble formation. The HEDP delayed the anti-biofilm action of NaOCl but not reduced its antimicrobial efficacy |
2% and 5% NaOCl | |||||||
Campello et al. [40] | 2022 | Randomized in vitro study on extracted human mandibular premolars | 21 | 2.5%NaOCl/9%HEDP | Antibacterial activity against Enterococcus faecalis | Quantitative RPCR | Both the freshly combined NaOCl/HEDP and the alternate use of NaOCl/ CA, activated by XP-endo Finisher, significantly diminished bacterial count compared with NaOCl alone Under no activation, NaOCl/HEDP was significantly more effective than the two other techniques |
2.5%NaOCl | |||||||
2.5%NaOCl/10% CA | |||||||
Giardino et al. [37] | 2019 | Blinded, randomized in vitro study on extracted single-rooted human teeth | 5 for surface tension test 10 for percentage of viable bacteria | 5%NaOCl + Dual Rinse HEDP | The surface tension and the antimicrobial activity of irrigant solutions against E. faecalis | Wilhelmy plate technique; CLSM and the live/dead technique | Dual Rinse HEDP increased NaOCl antimicrobial effect in dentinal tubules even if enhanced its surface tension |
5%NaOCl | |||||||
17% EDTA | |||||||
Morago et al. [41] | 2016 | Randomized in vitro study on extracted human premolars | 5 | 2.5% NaOCl + 9% HEBP | The influence of the smear layer on the antimicrobial activity of irrigant solutions | CLSM and the live/dead technique | With no smear layer, 2.5% NaOCl alone and plus 9% HEBP showed high antimicrobial activity with no differences between them The smear layer reduced the antimicrobial activity of 2.5% NaOCl while did not affect the antimicrobial capacity of 2.5% NaOCl/9% HEBP |
2.5% NaOCl | |||||||
Distillated water (control group) | |||||||
Neelakantan et al. [42] | 2015 | Randomized in vitro study on extracted single-rooted human premolars | 80 per group; 20 per subgroup | 6% NaOCl + 18% HEDP | The impact of three irrigation protocols, activated by three different methods, on mature biofilms of Enterococcus faecalis | CLSM and the live/dead technique | No significant differences emerged between NaOCl + etidronic acid and NaOCl-EDTA-NaOCl, whereas both groups induced more bacterial reduction than NaOCl-EDTA Diode laser and Er: YAG laser activation were superior compared with ultrasonics in the dentinal tubule disinfection |
3% NaOCl + 17% EDTA | |||||||
3% NaOCl + 17% EDTA + 3% NaOCl | |||||||
Sterile saline (control group) | |||||||
Pedrinha et al. [43] | 2021 | Randomized in vitro study on extracted human lower incisors | 10 | 5% NaOCl + 18% HEBP | Canal and intratubular decontamination against Enterococcus faecalis | CFU/mL count; CLSM and the live/dead technique | NaOCl + EDTA-T had the best intratubular antibacterial activity, mainly when associated with XP-Endo Finisher activation |
2.5% NaOCl + 17% EDTA | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl + EDTA-T | |||||||
Zehnder et al. [25] | 2005 | Blinded, randomized in vitro study on extracted single-rooted human teeth | 6 | 1% NaOCl + 7% HEBP | The interactions of chelators with NaOCl solution [antibacterial efficacy and smear layer] | Standard iodine/thiosulfate titration method; SEM; atomic absorption spectrometry | NaOCl did not modify the calcium-complexing ability of chelators; EDTA and CA negatively interfered with NaOCl antimicrobial activity, while HEBP did not |
1% NaOCl/H2O; | |||||||
7% HEBP/H2O | |||||||
17% EDTA/H2O | |||||||
17% EDTA/1% NaOCl | |||||||
10% CA/H2O | |||||||
10% CA/1% NaOCl |
Author | Year | Study design | Sample size [n] | Irrigants used | Outcome(s) | Measurement outcome[s] | Main findings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Deari et al. [33] | 2019 | Blinded, randomized in vitro study on dentine disks of extracted human third molars | 10 | 12% Na2HEDP | Dentine decalcification | ABS | Dentine decalcification by EDTA and HEDP depended on pH values of the aqueous solution; EDTA was a more potent calcium sequestrant than HEDP |
15% Na4HEDP | |||||||
17% Na2EDTA | |||||||
19% Na4EDTA | |||||||
PBS (negative control group) | |||||||
Dineshkumar et al. [45] | 2012 | Randomized in vitro study on extracted single-rooted human mandibular premolars | 20 | 1.3% NaOCl and 18% HEBP | Dentine microhardness | Vickers microhardness test | Among the tested solutions, HEBP reported the highest dentine microhardness; MTAD the least. HEBP as a final rinse seemed to less impact the mineral content of root dentine |
1.3% NaOCl + 17% EDTA | |||||||
1.3% NaOCl + MTAD | |||||||
Distilled water | |||||||
Girard et al. [3] | 2005 | Blinded, randomized in vitro study on extracted single-rooted human premolars | 16 | Aqueous gel consisting of 2% alginate, 3% aerosil, 10% Tween 80 and 18% HEBP | Calcium chelating capacity | Calcium-selective measuring chain | The examined HEBP gel had higher calcium chelating capacity compared with paste-type chelator products containing EDTA and hydrogen peroxide available into the market |
Two commercial paste-type chelators containing EDTA and peroxide (RC-Prep and Glyde) | |||||||
1% NaOCl without the use of a chelator [positive controls] | |||||||
Kfir et al. [34] | 2020 | Blinded, randomized in vitro study on extracted single-rooted human teeth | 20 | 3% NaOCl + Dual Rinse HEDP | Erosion of root canal walls | SEM | The two tested irrigant solutions did not differ for dentine erosion |
3%NaOCl + 17%EDTA | |||||||
Saline solution (negative control group) | |||||||
Lottanti et al. [17] | 2009 | Randomized in vitro study on extracted single-rooted human premolars | 12 | 2% NaOCl + 18% HEBP | Calcium eluted from the canal system and root dentinee demineralization | ABS; SEM | The tested decalcifying agents eroded the dentine wall in different manner. NaOCl/ etidronic acid did not decalcify the canal walls when used during root canal instrumentation and in the final rinse |
1% NaOCl + 2.25% PAA | |||||||
1% NaOCl + 17% EDTA [positive control] | |||||||
1% NaOCl + water (negative control) | |||||||
Rath et al. [47] | 2020 | Randomized in vitro study on extracted single-rooted human mandibular premolars | 12 | 3% NaOCl + 18% HEDP | Ultrastructural matrix characteristics and the chemical composition of dentine | SLM; STM; FTIR and EDS; ninhydrin assay | NaOCl/HEDP caused partially degraded, yet mineralized collagen fibers while NaOCl/EDTA dissolved the hydroxyapatite encapsulation, with the collagen fibre bundles exposition; NaOCl/HEDP showed a uniform distribution of organic and inorganic elements |
3%NaOCl + 17%EDTA | |||||||
Normal saline solution (control group) | |||||||
Tartari et al. [46] | 2013 | Randomized in vitro study on extracted human anterior teeth | 9 | 5% NaOCl + 18% HEBP | Root dentine roughness | Profilometer | NaOCl did not impact the surface roughness; only the irrigation protocols involving chelating agents altered the roughness of root dentine |
2.5% NaOCl + 9% HEBP | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl + 9% HEBP + 2.5% NaOCl | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl + 17% EDTA | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl + 10% CA | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl + 17% EDTA + 2.5% NaOCl | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl + 10% CA + 2.5% NaOCl | |||||||
Saline solution [control]; 2.5% NaOCl | |||||||
Tartari et al. [48] | 2017 | In vitro study on dentine slices of bovine incisors | 5 | 9% and 18% HEDP | Dentine demineralization | ATR-FTIR | EDP and EDTANa4 determined minor while EDTAHNa3 and PAA greater demineralization of dentine. Both effects were time and concentration dependent. NaOCl degraded the dentine organic matrix more quickly when the matrix was exposed |
0.9% saline | |||||||
5% and 10% EDTANa4; | |||||||
17% EDTAHNa3 | |||||||
0.5% and 2.0% PAA | |||||||
The combination of the previous agents with NaOCl | |||||||
Tartari et al. [49] | 2018 | In vitro study on dentine slices of bovine incisors | 10 | 2.5% NaOCl + 9% HEDP | Dentine roughness | Roughness measuring station | Saline solution, NaOCl, HEDP and CHX did not change the roughness of the dentine, whilst EDTA and PAA did |
2.5% NaOCl + 9%HEDP + 2%CHX | |||||||
mixture of 5% NaOCl + 18% HEDP | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl + 17% EDTA | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl + 0.5% PAA | |||||||
2.5%NaOCl + 17%EDTA + 2%CHX | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl + 0.5%PAA + 2%CH | |||||||
0.9% saline solution | |||||||
Ulusoy et al. [50] | 2020 | In vitro study on extracted single-rooted human mandibular teeth | 10 | 9% HEBP | Dentine nanohardness and erosion | Nanoindenter; SEM | Final irrigation with etidronate alone or combined with NaOCl altered structurally the root canal dentine Single chelator and chelator plus NaOCl had no significantly impact on dentine nanohardness |
2.5% NaOCl + 9% HEBP | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl | |||||||
17% EDTA | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl + 17% EDTA | |||||||
2% PAA | |||||||
2.5% NaOCl-2% PAA | |||||||
Distilled water (control) |