The gutta-percha softening efficacy of synthetic D-limonene at different concentrations and contact times
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To compare the softening efficacy of synthetic D-limonene in various concentration levels on gutta-percha at different contact times.
Methods: The bottom of 165 plastic molds was filled with Cavit and thermoplasticized gutta-percha, respectively. The molds were stored in an incubator at 37oC to simulate oral temperature and were divided into five experimental and two control groups according to the type of solvents used for softening effect and its concentration, and the contact times were varied at one, three, and five minutes. 0.2 ml of the solvent was added to the surface of all of the samples with the use of calibrated droppers and then the samples were left for one, three, and five minutes. A No.30 finger spreader moved downward with a constant speed of 5 mm/min by Universal Testing Machine EZ-S (SHIMADZU, Japan). The force was recorded in Newton, and data were recorded as numbers and graphs. Statistical analysis was performed by using IBM SPSS statistics 20 (New York, USA by the Kruskal-Wallis) at 95% confidence level.
Results: In each experimental group, the force required to move the finger spreader increased as the contact time increased. In the one-minute contact time group of samples, there was no statistically significant difference among different types of solvents except between chloroform and normal saline, chloroform and ethanol, 97% D- limonene and normal saline solution, and 97% D-limonene and ethanol (p <0.05).
Conclusion: This study revealed that the loaded force was less in the one-minute contact time group when compared to that in its three- and five-minute counterparts. The one-minute contact time is the optimum contact duration to soften gutta-percha. The least concentration of synthetic D- limonene that yielded the same gutta-percha-softening efficacy as chloroform was 60% synthetic D-limonene.
Article Details
References
Riis A, Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M, Kvist T. Tooth Survival after Surgical or Nonsurgical Endodontic Retreatment: Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial. J Endod 2018; 44: 1480-6.
Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K. Outcome of secondary root canal treatment: a systematic review of the literature. Int Endod J 2008; 41: 1026-46.
Akbar I. Radiographic study of the problems and failures of endodontic treatment. Int J Health Sci 2015; 9: 111-8.
Tabassum S, Khan FR. Failure of endodontic treatment: The usual suspects. Eur J Dent 2016; 10: 144-7.
Tasdemir T, Er K, Yildirim T, Celik D. Efficacy of three rotary NiTi instruments in removing gutta-percha from root canals. Int Endod J 2008; 41: 191-6.
Yuruker S, Gorduysus M, Kucukkaya S, Uzunoglu E, Ilgin C, Gulen O, et al. Efficacy of Combined Use of Different Nickel-Titanium Files on Removing Root Canal Filling Materials. J Endod 2016; 42: 487-92.
DUNCAN HF, CHONG BS. Removal of root filling materials. Endodontic Topics 2008; 19(1): 33-57.
Kaplowitz GJ. Evaluation of Gutta-percha solvents. J Endod 1990; 16: 539-40.
Gorduysus MO, Tasman F, Tuncer S, Etikan I. Solubilizing efficiency of different gutta-percha solvents: a comparative study. J Nihon Univ Sch Dent 1997; 39: 133-5.
Spangberg L, Engstrom B, Langeland K. Biologic effects of dental materials. 3. Toxicity and antimicrobial effect of endodontic antiseptics in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1973; 36: 856-71.
Wourms DJ, Campbell AD, Hicks ML, Pelleu GB, Jr. Alternative solvents to chloroform for gutta-percha removal. J Endod 1990; 16: 224-6.
Chernichenko IA, Balenko NV, Litvichenko ON. [Carcinogenic hazard of chloroform and other drinking water chlorination by-products]. Gig Sanit 2009: 28-33.
Reitz RH, Gehring PJ, Park CN. Carcinogenic risk estimation for chloroform: an alternative to EPA's procedures. Food Cosmet Toxicol 1978; 16: 511-4.
Magalhaes BS, Johann JE, Lund RG, Martos J, Del Pino FA. Dissolving efficacy of some organic solvents on gutta-percha. Braz Oral Res 2007; 21: 303-7.
Sun J. D-Limonene: safety and clinical applications. Altern Med Rev 2007; 12: 259-64.
Kaplowitz GJ. Evaluation of the ability of essential oils to dissolve gutta-percha. J Endod 1991; 17: 448-9.
Metzger Z, Marian-Kfir V, Tamse A. Gutta-percha softening: "Hemo-De" as a xylene substitute. J Endod 2000; 26: 385-8.
Hansen MG. Relative efficiency of solvents used in endodontics. J Endod 1998; 24: 38-40.
Oyama KO, Siqueira EL, Santos M. In vitro study of effect of solvent on root canal retreatment. Braz Dent J 2002; 13: 208-11.
Pecora JD, Spano JC, Barbin EL. In vitro study on the softening of gutta-percha cones in endodontic retreatment. Braz Dent J 1993; 4: 43-7.
Jantarat J, Malhotra W, Sutimuntanakul S. Efficacy of grapefruit, tangerine, lime, and lemon oils as solvents for softening gutta-percha in root canal retreatment procedures. J Investig Clin Dent 2013; 4: 60-3.
Uemura M, Hata G, Toda T, Weine FS. Effectiveness of eucalyptol and d-limonene as gutta-percha solvents. J Endod 1997; 23: 739-41.
Peraya S NC, Tosaphol P. In vitro study on the efficacy in assisting gutta-percha removal and cytotoxicity of essential oil from Citrus maxima (pomelo oil). CU Dent J 2004; 37: 289-98.
Kim S, Chen J, Cheng T, Gindulyte A, He J, He S, et al. PubChem 2019 update: improved access to chemical data. Nucleic Acids Res 2019; 47: D1102-D9.
Fabio de Almeida Gomes APBD, Rodrigo Arraes Nunes, Anna Lygia Nunes Fernandes, Claudio Maniglia-Ferreira, Humberto Ramah Meneses de Matos, Taffarel Canuto Nepomuceno. Efficacy of gutta-percha solvents used in endodontic retreatments. RSBO 2013; 10: 356-61.
Numan FG. The Dissolving Capability Of Various Gutta-Percha Solvents. Journal of Al Rafidain University College 2013: 116-24.