, Volume 107, Issue 1, pp 64–71 | Cite as

Effect of chitosan nanoparticle, QMix, and EDTA on TotalFill BC sealers’ dentinal tubule penetration: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study

  • Zeliha Uğur Aydın
  • Taha ÖzyürekEmail author
  • Büşra Keskin
  • Talat Baran
Original Article


The aim of the present study was to compare the effect of chitosan nanoparticle, QMix, and 17% EDTA on the penetrability of a calcium silicate-based sealer into dentinal tubules using a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Sixty mandibular premolar teeth were selected and randomly divided into three groups (n = 20) before root canal preparation according to the solution used in the final rinse protocol: chitosan, QMix, and EDTA groups. Twenty teeth of each group were filled with a TotalFill BC sealers’ single gutta-percha cone and with 0.1% rhodamine B. The specimens were horizontally sectioned at 3 and 5 mm from the apex, and the slices were analyzed in CLSM (4×). Total percentage and maximum depth of sealer penetration were measured using confocal laser scanning microscopy with using Image J analysis software. Dentinal tubule’s penetration depth, percentage, and area were measured using imaging software. Kruskal–Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. The level of significance was set at 5%. Results of Kruskal–Wallis analysis showed that there was a significant difference in the percentage and depth of sealer penetration among all groups at 3 and 5 mm level sections (P < 0.05). Within the groups, the minimum sealer penetration depth was recorded for chitosan nanoparticle group. Greater depth of sealer penetration was recorded at 5 mm as compared to 3 mm in all the groups. Within the limitation of the present study, it can be concluded that QMix and EDTA promoted sealer penetration superior to that achieved by chitosan nanoparticle.


Chitosan nanoparticle Confocal microscopy EDTA Sealer penetration QMix 



The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Bayram HM, Bayram E, Kanber M, Celikten B, Saklar F. Effect of different chelating solutions on the push-out bond strength of various root canal sealers. Biomed Res. 2017;1:401–6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Prado M, Simão RA, Gomes BPFA. A microleakage study of gutta-percha/AH Plus and Resilon/Real self-etch systems after different irrigation protocols. J Appl Oral Sci. 2014;22:174–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Teixeira C, Felippe M, Felippe W. The effect of application time of EDTA and NaOCl on intracanal smear layer removal: an SEM analysis. Int Endod J. 2005;38:285–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stojicic S, Shen Y, Qian W, Johnson B, Haapasalo M. Antibacterial and smear layer removal ability of a novel irrigant, QMiX. Int Endod J. 2012;45:363–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baskar D, Kumar TS. Effect of deacetylation time on the preparation, properties and swelling behavior of chitosan films. Carbohydr Polym. 2009;78:767–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar MR, Muzzarelli RA, Muzzarelli C, Sashiwa H, Domb A. Chitosan chemistry and pharmaceutical perspectives. Chem Rev. 2004;104:6017–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ji X, Zhong Z, Chen X, et al. Preparation of 1, 3, 5-thiadiazine-2-thione derivatives of chitosan and their potential antioxidant activity in vitro. Bioorg Med Chem Lett Title. 2007;17:4275–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghadi A, Mahjoub S, Tabandeh F, Talebnia F. Synthesis and optimization of chitosan nanoparticles: potential applications in nanomedicine and biomedical engineering. Caspian J Intern Med. 2014;5:156–61.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silva P, Guedes D, Nakadi F, Pécora J, Cruz-Filho A. Chitosan: a new solution for removal of smear layer after root canal instrumentation. Int Endod J. 2013;46:332–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee JK, Kwak SW, Ha J-H, Lee W, Kim H-C. Physicochemical properties of epoxy resin-based and bioceramic-based root canal sealers. Bioinorg Chem Appl. 2017;1:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McMichael GE, Primus CM, Opperman LA. Dentinal tubule penetration of tricalcium silicate sealers. J Endod. 2016;42:632–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vimal S, Taju G, Nambi KN, Majeed SA, Babu VS, Ravi M, Hameed AS. Synthesis and characterization of CS/TPP nanoparticles for oral delivery of gene in fish. Aquaculture. 2012;15:14–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barreto MS, do Amaral Moraes R, da Rosa RA, Moreira CHC, Só MVR, Bier CAS. Vertical root fractures and dentin defects: effects of root canal preparation, filling, and mechanical cycling. J Endod 2012;38:1135–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gharib SR, Tordik PA, Imamura GM, Baginski TA, Goodell GG. A confocal laser scanning microscope investigation of the epiphany obturation system. J Endod. 2007;33:957–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kokkas AB, Boutsioukis AC, Vassiliadis LP, Stavrianos CK. The influence of the smear layer on dentinal tubule penetration depth by three different root canal sealers: an in vitro study. J Endod. 2004;30:100–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Akcay M, Arslan H, Durmus N, Mese M, Capar ID. Dentinal tubule penetration of AH Plus, iRoot SP, MTA Fillapex, and GuttaFlow Bioseal root canal sealers after different final irrigation procedures: a confocal microscopic study. Laser Surg Med. 2016;48:70–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tuncer AK, Tuncer S. Effect of different final irrigation solutions on dentinal tubule penetration depth and percentage of root canal sealer. J Endod. 2012;38:860–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Generali L, Cavani F, Serena V, Pettenati C, Righi E, Bertoldi C. Effect of different irrigation systems on sealer penetration into dentinal tubules. J Endod. 2017;43:652–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wiesse P, Pereira R, Silva-Sousa Y, Estrela C, Sousa-Neto M, Pécora J. Effect of ultrasonic and sonic activation of root canal sealers on the push-out bond strength and interfacial adaptation to root canal dentine. Int Endod J 2018;51:102–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jeong JW, DeGraft-Johnson A, Dorn SO, Di Fiore PM. Dentinal tubule penetration of a calcium silicate-based root canal sealer with different obturation methods. J Endod. 2017;43:633–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weis MV, Parashos P, Messer H. Effect of obturation technique on sealer cement thickness and dentinal tubule penetration. Int Endod J. 2004;37:653–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Balguerie E, van der Sluis L, Vallaeys K, Gurgel-Georgelin M, Diemer F. Sealer penetration and adaptation in the dentinal tubules: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2011;37:1576–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Van Meerbeek B, Vargas M, Inoue S, et al. Microscopy investigations. Techniques, results, limitations. Am J Dent. 2000;13:3–18.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baumgartner JC, Ibay AC. The chemical reactions of irrigants used for root canal debridement. J Endod. 1987;13:47–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Atmeh A, Chong E, Richard G, Festy F, Watson T. Dentin-cement interfacial interaction: calcium silicates and polyalkenoates. J Dent Res. 2012;91:454–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Okşan T, Aktener B, Şen B, Tezel H. The penetration of root canal sealers into dentinal tubules. A scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J. 1993;26:301–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dai L, Khechen K, Khan S, et al. The effect of QMix, an experimental antibacterial root canal irrigant, on removal of canal wall smear layer and debris. J Endod. 2011;37:80–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Aranda-Garcia AJ, Kuga MC, Vitorino KR et al. Effect of the root canal final rinse protocols on the debris and smear layer removal and on the push-out strength of an epoxy-based sealer. Microsc Res Tech 2013;76:533–7.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eliot C, Hatton JF, Stewart GP, Hildebolt CF, Gillespie MJ, Gutmann JL. The effect of the irrigant QMix on removal of canal wall smear layer: an ex vivo study. Odontology. 2014;102:232–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Elnaghy A. Effect of QMix irrigant on bond strength of glass fibre posts to root dentine. Int Endod J. 2014;47:280–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jardine AP, Da Rosa RA, Santini MF, et al. The effect of final irrigation on the penetrability of an epoxy resin-based sealer into dentinal tubules: a confocal microscopy study. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20:117–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chaudhry S, Yadav S, Talwar S, Verma M. Effect of EndoActivator and Er, Cr: YSGG laser activation of Qmix, as final endodontic irrigant, on sealer penetration: a confocal microscopic study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9:e218–22.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    del Carpio-Perochena A, Kishen A, Felitti R, et al. Antibacterial properties of chitosan nanoparticles and propolis associated with calcium hydroxide against single-and multispecies biofilms: an in vitro and in situ study. J Endod. 2017;43:1332–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vasiliadis L, Darling AI, Levers BG. The amount and distribution of sclerotic human root dentine. Arch Oral Biol. 1983;28:645–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Russell AA, Chandler NP, Hauman C, et al. The butterfly effect: an investigation of sectioned roots. J Endod. 2013;39:208–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moon Y-M, Kim H-C, Bae K-S, Baek S-H, Shon W-J, Lee W. Effect of laser-activated irrigation of 1320-nanometer Nd: YAG laser on sealer penetration in curved root canals. J Endod. 2012;38:531–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kara TA. Effect of QMix 2in1 on sealer penetration into the dentinal tubules. J Endod. 2015;41:257–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ribeiro RG, Marchesan MA, Silva RG, Sousa-Neto MD, Pécora JD. Dentin permeability of the apical third in different groups of teeth. Braz Dent J. 2010;21:216–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    De-Deus G, Brandão M, Leal F, et al. Lack of correlation between sealer penetration into dentinal tubules and sealability in nonbonded root fillings. Int Endod J. 2012;45:642–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of The Nippon Dental University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Endodontics, Faculty of DentistryAbant İzzet Baysal UniversityBoluTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Endodontics, Faculty of DentistryOndokuz Mayıs UniversitySamsunTurkey
  3. 3.Balgat Oral and Dental CentreAnkaraTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Science and LettersAksaray UniversityAksarayTurkey

Personalised recommendations