Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Chia MSY, Parolia A, Lim BSH, Jayaraman J, Porto ICCM
    Restor Dent Endod, 2020 Aug;45(3):e28.
    PMID: 32839709 DOI: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e28
    Objectives: To evaluate the outcome of in vitro studies comparing the effectiveness of QMix irrigant in removing the smear layer in the root canal system compared with other irrigants.

    Materials and Methods: The research question was developed by using Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Study design framework. Literature search was performed using 3 electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost until October 2019. Two reviewers were independently involved in the selection of the articles and data extraction process. Risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) based on 5 domains.

    Results: Thirteen studies fulfilled the selection criteria. The overall risk of bias was moderate. QMix was found to have better smear layer removal ability than mixture of tetracycline isonomer, an acid and a detergent (MTAD), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), and phytic acid. The efficacy was less effective than 7% maleic acid and 10% citric acid. No conclusive results could be drawn between QMix and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid due to conflicting results. QMix was more effective when used for 3 minutes than 1 minute.

    Conclusions: QMix has better smear layer removal ability compared to MTAD, NaOCl, Tubulicid Plus, and Phytic acid. In order to remove the smear layer more effectively with QMix, it is recommended to use it for a longer duration.

  2. Lim BSH, Parolia A, Chia MSY, Jayaraman J, Nagendrababu V
    Restor Dent Endod, 2020 May;45(2):e23.
    PMID: 32483540 DOI: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e23
    Objectives: This study aimed to summarize the outcome of in vitro studies comparing the antibacterial effectiveness of QMix with other irrigants against Enterococcus faecalis.

    Materials and Methods: The research question was developed by using population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design framework. The literature search was performed using 3 electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost until October 2019. The additional hand search was performed from the reference list of the eligible studies. The risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0).

    Results: Fourteen studies were included in this systematic review. The overall risk of bias for the selected studies was moderate. QMix was found to have a higher antimicrobial activity compared to 2% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 2% chlorhexidine (CHX), mixture of tetracycline isonomer, an acid and a detergent (MTAD), 0.2% Cetrimide, SilverSol/H2O2, HYBENX, and grape seed extract (GSE). QMix had higher antibacterial efficacy compared to NaOCl, only when used for a longer time (10 minutes) and with higher volume (above 3 mL).

    Conclusions: QMix has higher antibacterial activity than 17% EDTA, 2% CHX, MTAD, 0.2% Cetrimide, SilverSol/H2O2, HYBENX, GSE and NaOCl with lower concentration. To improve the effectiveness, QMix is to use for a longer time and at a higher volume.

    Trial Registration: PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews Identifier: CRD42018096763.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links