Comparative Analysis of the Chelating Capacity of Two Solutions Activated with Sonic and Ultrasonic Systems: HEBP Versus EDTA

The success of root canal treatment depends on the proper execution of each phase. However, the instrumentation and irrigation phase is especially important. During this phase the interior of the root canal system must be removed to facilitate the next phase, obturation, achieving the most airtight...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Lefevre, Chloé, Mena Gómez, Julia Mª, Martín Vacas, Andrea, Vera González, Vicente, Mena Álvarez, Jesús
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2025
País:España
Institución:Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
Repositorio:Docta Complutense
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/125052
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/125052
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:616.314.018
EDTA
endodontic irrigation
HEBP
smear layer removal
endodontic activation
Endodoncia
Aparatos y material odontológicos
3299 Otras Especialidades Médicas
3213.13 Ortodoncia-Estomatología
3311.03 Instrumentos Para Odontología
id ES_bdc8be09c0c0741c3c08976edcd40ada
oai_identifier_str oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/125052
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Comparative Analysis of the Chelating Capacity of Two Solutions Activated with Sonic and Ultrasonic Systems: HEBP Versus EDTALefevre, ChloéMena Gómez, Julia MªMartín Vacas, AndreaVera González, VicenteMena Álvarez, Jesús616.314.018EDTAendodontic irrigationHEBPsmear layer removalendodontic activationEndodonciaEndodonciaAparatos y material odontológicos3299 Otras Especialidades Médicas3213.13 Ortodoncia-Estomatología3311.03 Instrumentos Para OdontologíaThe success of root canal treatment depends on the proper execution of each phase. However, the instrumentation and irrigation phase is especially important. During this phase the interior of the root canal system must be removed to facilitate the next phase, obturation, achieving the most airtight seal possible, resulting in the success of the endodontic treatment. This study aimed to compare the chelating capacity and smear layer removal effectiveness of two irrigants—17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and 9% hydroxyethylidene bisphosphonate (HEBP)—when activated using two different irrigant activation systems: sonic and ultrasonic. Additionally, the study assessed the relationship between these variables and the average diameter of dentinal tubules in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root canal. A total of 105 single-rooted human teeth were decoronated and instrumented using a rotary system. Teeth were randomly assigned to four experimental groups based on the irrigant (EDTA or HEBP) and the activation method (sonic or ultrasonic). Final irrigation was performed with the corresponding protocol. Samples were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Smear layer removal was quantified using the Carvalho method, and dentinal tubule diameter was measured with image analysis software. Data were statistically analyzed using Kolmogorov–Smirnov and non-parametric tests, with a significance level set at α = 0.05. EDTA showed superior smear layer removal in the coronal and middle thirds, particularly when activated ultrasonically. In contrast, HEBP was more effective in the apical third, especially when used with sonic activation. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall tubule diameter between the two chelating agents; however, HEBP resulted in significantly larger tubule openings in the apical third. Activation systems played a critical role, with ultrasonic irrigation being more effective for EDTA and sonic irrigation favoring HEBP in specific canal regions. The combination of chelating agent and activation system influences both smear layer removal and dentinal tubule morphology. HEBP demonstrated promising results in the apical third with minimal structural damage, supporting its use as a viable alternative to EDTA in continuous chelation protocols.MDPIUniversidad Complutense de Madrid20252025-09-1220252025-09-12journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501VoRhttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85info:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/125052reponame:Docta Complutenseinstname:Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)Inglésengopen accesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/1250522026-06-02T12:44:21Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparative Analysis of the Chelating Capacity of Two Solutions Activated with Sonic and Ultrasonic Systems: HEBP Versus EDTA
title Comparative Analysis of the Chelating Capacity of Two Solutions Activated with Sonic and Ultrasonic Systems: HEBP Versus EDTA
spellingShingle Comparative Analysis of the Chelating Capacity of Two Solutions Activated with Sonic and Ultrasonic Systems: HEBP Versus EDTA
Lefevre, Chloé
616.314.018
EDTA
endodontic irrigation
HEBP
smear layer removal
endodontic activation
Endodoncia
Endodoncia
Aparatos y material odontológicos
3299 Otras Especialidades Médicas
3213.13 Ortodoncia-Estomatología
3311.03 Instrumentos Para Odontología
title_short Comparative Analysis of the Chelating Capacity of Two Solutions Activated with Sonic and Ultrasonic Systems: HEBP Versus EDTA
title_full Comparative Analysis of the Chelating Capacity of Two Solutions Activated with Sonic and Ultrasonic Systems: HEBP Versus EDTA
title_fullStr Comparative Analysis of the Chelating Capacity of Two Solutions Activated with Sonic and Ultrasonic Systems: HEBP Versus EDTA
title_full_unstemmed Comparative Analysis of the Chelating Capacity of Two Solutions Activated with Sonic and Ultrasonic Systems: HEBP Versus EDTA
title_sort Comparative Analysis of the Chelating Capacity of Two Solutions Activated with Sonic and Ultrasonic Systems: HEBP Versus EDTA
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Lefevre, Chloé
Mena Gómez, Julia Mª
Martín Vacas, Andrea
Vera González, Vicente
Mena Álvarez, Jesús
author Lefevre, Chloé
author_facet Lefevre, Chloé
Mena Gómez, Julia Mª
Martín Vacas, Andrea
Vera González, Vicente
Mena Álvarez, Jesús
author_role author
author2 Mena Gómez, Julia Mª
Martín Vacas, Andrea
Vera González, Vicente
Mena Álvarez, Jesús
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidad Complutense de Madrid
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv 616.314.018
EDTA
endodontic irrigation
HEBP
smear layer removal
endodontic activation
Endodoncia
Endodoncia
Aparatos y material odontológicos
3299 Otras Especialidades Médicas
3213.13 Ortodoncia-Estomatología
3311.03 Instrumentos Para Odontología
topic 616.314.018
EDTA
endodontic irrigation
HEBP
smear layer removal
endodontic activation
Endodoncia
Endodoncia
Aparatos y material odontológicos
3299 Otras Especialidades Médicas
3213.13 Ortodoncia-Estomatología
3311.03 Instrumentos Para Odontología
description The success of root canal treatment depends on the proper execution of each phase. However, the instrumentation and irrigation phase is especially important. During this phase the interior of the root canal system must be removed to facilitate the next phase, obturation, achieving the most airtight seal possible, resulting in the success of the endodontic treatment. This study aimed to compare the chelating capacity and smear layer removal effectiveness of two irrigants—17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and 9% hydroxyethylidene bisphosphonate (HEBP)—when activated using two different irrigant activation systems: sonic and ultrasonic. Additionally, the study assessed the relationship between these variables and the average diameter of dentinal tubules in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root canal. A total of 105 single-rooted human teeth were decoronated and instrumented using a rotary system. Teeth were randomly assigned to four experimental groups based on the irrigant (EDTA or HEBP) and the activation method (sonic or ultrasonic). Final irrigation was performed with the corresponding protocol. Samples were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Smear layer removal was quantified using the Carvalho method, and dentinal tubule diameter was measured with image analysis software. Data were statistically analyzed using Kolmogorov–Smirnov and non-parametric tests, with a significance level set at α = 0.05. EDTA showed superior smear layer removal in the coronal and middle thirds, particularly when activated ultrasonically. In contrast, HEBP was more effective in the apical third, especially when used with sonic activation. There were no statistically significant differences in the overall tubule diameter between the two chelating agents; however, HEBP resulted in significantly larger tubule openings in the apical third. Activation systems played a critical role, with ultrasonic irrigation being more effective for EDTA and sonic irrigation favoring HEBP in specific canal regions. The combination of chelating agent and activation system influences both smear layer removal and dentinal tubule morphology. HEBP demonstrated promising results in the apical third with minimal structural damage, supporting its use as a viable alternative to EDTA in continuous chelation protocols.
publishDate 2025
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2025
2025-09-12
2025
2025-09-12
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv journal article
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
VoR
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/125052
url https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/125052
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
eng
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
language eng
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.rights.openaire.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv open access
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv MDPI
publisher.none.fl_str_mv MDPI
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Docta Complutense
instname:Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
instname_str Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM)
reponame_str Docta Complutense
collection Docta Complutense
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869418229977317376
score 15,812455

Similares en LA Referencia