3.9 Article

Effect of Chemical Substances in Removing Methylene Blue After Photodynamic Therapy in Root Canal Treatment

Journal

PHOTOMEDICINE AND LASER SURGERY
Volume 29, Issue 8, Pages 559-563

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/pho.2010.2922

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and objective: The disadvantage of photodynamic therapy (PDT) is in the photosensitizing agents that may stain the tooth structure. There is no register of PDT studies evaluating protocols to minimize that concern. The present study evaluated the efficiency of chemical adjuncts in methylene blue dye (MB) removal after PDT. Materials and methods: Forty single-rooted teeth, after root canal preparation, were filled with 0.01% MB for 5 min, and irradiated with diode laser 660 nm at 40 mW for 240 sec (total energy 9.6J). The specimens were divided into four groups (n = 10), according to the chemical adjuncts used for dye removal: (a) 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); (b) 2.5% NaOCl + Endo-PTC cream; (c) 70% ethyl alcohol and (d) saline (control). The crowns were sectioned and fixed in a device. Photographs were taken before the PDT (T0), immediately after (T1) and upon dye removal (T2). The chromatic alterations were evaluated using Adobe Photoshop and K values were determined in four fixed points of each crown. Results: K values (dental staining) increased in all groups when comparing T0 and T1. The effectiveness of the tested adjuncts was, in decreasing order: G1 (-3.11) > G2 (-2.97) > G3 (-1.28) > G4 (-1.19), not observing significant statistical differences (p < 0.05) between G1 and G2 and also between G3 and G4. Conclusions: Protocols to remove photosensitizing dyes should be applied after PDT in order to minimize dental stain. The protocols tested in this study by using 2.5% NaOCl, associated or not with Endo-PTC cream, were effective in avoiding tooth staining caused by MB during PDT.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available