CHLOREXIDINE VS SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE FOR ROOT CANAL IRRIGATION

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.22533/at.ed.1594642401071

• Palavras-chave: Sodium hypochlorite. Chlorhexidine. Root Canal Irrigants.

• Keywords: Sodium hypochlorite. Chlorhexidine. Root Canal Irrigants.

• Abstract:

  Introduction: Endodontics seeks an antiseptic environment for the root canal system (SCR), allowing infection control. The procedures carried out to disinfect the SCR are carried out with mechanical preparation and the use of chemical solutions. Root canal irrigation is defined as cleaning the canals through the activation and renewal of an irrigating solution, reaching areas that endodontic instruments cannot reach. Objective: Compare the chemical properties of chlorhexidine (CHX) and sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) solutions for SCR irrigation. Methodology: This is a bibliographical review, in which scientific articles published in the last few years were used.5years, in English and Portuguese, from the PubMED and Google Scholar databases. The descriptors used were: Sodium Hypochlorite, Chlorhexidine and Root Canal Irrigants. Initially, 80 articles were selected, of which 14 were used due to their consistency with the research objective. Results: Chlorhexidine gluconate and sodium hypochlorite are the irrigating solutions most used in endodontics. However, chlorhexidine does not have the capacity to dissolve organic or inorganic substances and has a high cost, but it has good properties due to its bactericidal and bacteriostatic power, residual action and less irritating capacity to periapical tissues. Sodium hypochlorite has the advantages of antimicrobial properties, acting on biofilms, dissolution of organic matter, alkalinity, lower cost and fast action, with the disadvantage of potential irritation to periapical tissues/mucosa and inactivity against the smear layer. Conclusion: Both irrigating substances are effective in acting on SCR, as long as they are used consistently and with knowledge of their clinical limitations.