Abstract
Data sources
The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, and LILACS databases were searched with no restrictions.
Study selection
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving single or multi-rooted permanent teeth requiring root canal treatment (RoCT) which compared irrigants against each other or against inactive irrigant or placebo were included. Combinations of irrigants were allowed and if used in conjunction with EDTA (ethylenediaminetetra-acetic acid) or similar chelating agents.
Data extraction and synthesis
Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials and extracted data.
Results
Eleven trials (851 participants, 879 teeth) were included. Six trials were assessed at high risk of bias, three unclear and two low. Four compared sodium hypochlorite versus chlorhexidine, the other trials compared different interventions and only two of these trials included useable data on the primary outcomes of swelling and pain. Meta-analysis of sodium hypochlorite versus chlorhexidine indicated no strong evidence of a difference in the existence of bacterial growth between the interventions (risk ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 1.56; P = 0.41). None of the included trials reported any data on adverse effects nor radiological changes in periapical radiolucency.
Conclusions
Although root canal irrigants such as sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine appear to be effective at reducing bacterial cultures when compared to saline, most of the studies included in this review failed to adequately report these clinically important and potentially patient-relevant outcomes. There is currently insufficient reliable evidence showing the superiority of any one individual irrigant. The strength and reliability of the supporting evidence was variable, and clinicians should be aware that changes in bacterial counts or pain in the early postoperative period may not be accurate indicators of long-term success. Future trials should report both clinician-relevant and patient-preferred outcomes at clearly defined perioperative, as well as long-term, time points.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Rossi-Fedele G, Dogramaci EJ, Guastalli AR, Steier L, Figueiredo JA . Antagonistic interactions between sodium hypochlorite, chlorhexidine, EDTA, and Citric Acid J. Endod 2012; 38: 426–431.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence: Luisa Fernandez Mauleffinch, Review Group Co-ordinator, Cochrane Oral Health Group, MANDEC, School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, M15 6FH, UK. E-mail: luisa.fernandez@manchester.ac.uk
Fedorowicz Z, Nasser M, Sequeira-Byron P, de Souza RF, Carter B, Heft M. Irrigants for non-surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 9: CD008948. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008948.pub2.
This paper is based on a Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Library 2012, issue 9 (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the Cochrane Library should be consulted for the most recent version of the review.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Keenan, A. No evidence favouring one irrigant versus another in root canal treatments. Evid Based Dent 13, 107 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400891
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400891
