الفهرس 
INTRODUCTIONOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 142 |  |  |
| | | from | 142 | | |
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of QMix® as an irrigating solution on smear layer removal, surface wettability of root canal dentin and microhardness of root canal dentin. A total of 90 human permanent single rooted premolars were used in this study. Decoronation was done, the root length was measured. Longitudinal grooves were performed on the mesial and distal root surfaces to facilitate splitting after instrumentation. Samples were divided into two experimental groups and one control group according to the final rinse being used. Each group was further divided into three subgroups according to the test of evaluation being carried out. Evaluation of smear layer Longitudinal sections were desiccated and gold sputtered to be viewed using scanning electron microscope. Images were taken for the cervical, middle and apical regions. A scoring system was used to give smear layer score for each third of the canal. Data was collected and statistically analysed.
Evaluation of physical properties:
a) Evaluation of wettability
Longitudinal root sections were embedded into auto polymerized acrylic resin in plastic rings and were ground flat and smooth. A DROP of the reference irrigant was deposited on dentin surface with a micro-syringe. Images of the DROP were captured immediately with the video camera. On the acquired images; using the angle tool (ImageJ® software), the angle was measured and analyzed using ImageJ® software and contact angles were provided. Data was collected and statistically analysed.
b) Evaluation of microhardness
Longitudinal root sections were embedded into auto polymerized acrylic resin in plastic rings and were ground flat and smooth. The measurements were taken using Vickers microhardness tester at three different points for each sample on the cervical, middle, and apical dentin. Data was collected and statistically analysed.
Results Results showed that none of the techniques used resulted in perfect canal cleanliness. However both QMix® and sodium hypochlorite with EDTA showed significantly better cleaning abilities to remove smear layer compared to saline. The highest wettability was recorded with QMix® followed by sodium hypochlorite, EDTA and the lowest wettability was recorded for saline. Finally the highest microhardness values were recorded for saline then QMix® and the lowest values were given by sodium hypochlorite with EDTA. There was a statistically significant difference between different irrigants on the overall microhardness of the root canal.