DATA AND METHODS

Data source
The first author searched Medline (1999-01/ 2011-12) to retrieve the relevant articles with “chelating agent, smear layer, root canal irrigation, root canal preparation” as key words. Later, manual search was carried out by all the three authors independently and the articles in English language were reviewed.

Inclusion criteria
(1) Literature content having significant correlation with the objective of the review. (2) Arguments having significant basis on the original literature. (3) Definitive conclusions and opinions and comprehensive analysis of the references.

Exclusion criteria
(1) The research content and the objective of the review have little or no correlation. (2) Repetition of the research content.

Quality assessment
Literature selection and its evaluation were cross checked independently by the three authors and the differences in opinions were resolved through discussion, reasoning and communication with the corresponding author.

Data extraction
The initial search revealed 80 articles. After prescreening, i.e., reading the title, abstract and content by the corresponding author, 30 literatures were found to have no correlation with the review and thus excluded. Repetition of the content was found in five articles, hence not included. Later, by manual searching, six articles were found relevant. Finally a total of 50 articles were included in the review.

RESULTS
Chelating agents
Chelating agents are combined with hydroxyapatite crystals to form stable complexes causing dentin demineralization^[7]. Commonly used chelating agents include 15% to 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, ethylene glycoltetraacetic acid (EGTA), RC Prep (root canal preparation cream), citric acid, a mixture of doxycycline, citric acid and a detergent [Tween 80](Dentsply, Tulsa, OK, USA), smear clear (17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, cetrimide, surfactant), chlorhexidine digluconate, etc. Mixture of tetre cycline isomer, an acid and a detergent is an aqueous solution of 3% doxycycline, a broad-spectrum antibiotic; 4.25% citric acid, a dematerializing agent; and 0.5% polysorbate 80 detergents (Tween 80)^[8]. It represents an effective solution for removal of smear layer from instrumented canal walls without adversely affecting the physical properties of the tooth, favors adhesive restorative procedures and is biocompatible. It possesses reasonable, antimicrobial property against enterococcus facials; a facultative gram-positive anaerobe, predominantly associated with persistent per apical infections in endodontic treated teeth, which is extremely resistant to current treatment modalities^[1]. It is widely accepted that the most effective method to remove smear layer is alternate irrigation of the root canal with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and NaOCl which flushes out the debris. NaOCl with its photolytic capabilities acts as a tissue solvent dissolving the organic portion of the smear layer, i.e. pupil remnants and dentin debris and at the same time acts as a bactericidal agent. Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid forms calcium chelae with hydroxyapatite crystals which in turn changes the permeability, micro hardness and solubility of root canal dentin^[9-11] by causing dentin demineralization^[12]. A study by Clarkson et al ^[13] demonstrated that active chlorine content of NaOCl was greatly reduced by mixing with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Even small admixtures of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid caused substantial reduction in the active chlorine content irrespective of the concentration of NaOCl. Thus to retain their respective therapeutic benefits, NaOCl and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid should not be mixed in the canal and it should be evacuated and/or dried between solutions. The order in which the two solutions should be used remains a matter of ongoing debate.

Factors affecting the role of chelating agent
The volume of the fluid
There is always a study going on in search for the best method to remove the smear layer. Volume of the irrigate is also one of the most debated elements. A recent study by Uroz-Torres et al ^[14] reported no significant improvement in smear layer removal with end activator which may be attributed to the lower volume of the irrigate used (1 mL 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, 3 mL 4% NaOCl). Kuah et al ^[15] demonstrated that a greater volume of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (5 mL) followed by 1% NaOCl (5 mL) provided more effective smear layer and debris removal in the apical region of straight root canals, which was further enhanced by ultrasonic agitation. Crumpton et al ^[16] demonstrated that the ideal volume of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid for debris and smear layer removal was 1 mL with Max-I- probe irrigating tip. The study concluded that 1 mL ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid solution was as effective as 10 mL ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid solution. On increasing the volume of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid over 1 mL, no further debris removal was seen. Similarly, Mello et al ^[17] demonstrated that a final rinse with 5 mL of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid was as efficient for removing smear layer as 10 mL or 15 mL. The study suggested high-volume irrigates to be unnecessary for root canal debris removal. Most of the studies have suggested better smear layer removal with higher volume of root canal irrigate used. As the volume is more, the chelating solution gets better contact with the root canal walls thus enhancing the chelating action, mostly in the apical thirds of the root canals. The above mentioned literatures also suggest that the volume of the solution has no significant correlation with the dentinal erosion. The ability of an irrigating solution to remove smear layers from the coronal third, middle third, and apical third of a canal wall depends on the aggressiveness of the irrigate and the manner in which the irrigate is delivered[18]. For example, the presence of a vapor lock in a closed-canal system precludes optimal delivery of irrigate to the apical third of the canal wall^[12]. Although the presence of a vapor lock in a closed-canal system^[19] may affect the efficacy of smear layer removal from the apical third of the canal well, the presence of a film of irrigate between the air bubble and the canal wall still permits some form of smear layer removal albeit in a less efficient manner. On the contrary, the ability to clear debris from the canal walls is more dependent on the flow of the manner in which irrigate is agitated[12] instead of the aggressiveness of the irritants. Because there is only limited flow of irrigates by manual delivery of irrigate through a side-vented needle without additional agitation^[20]. In the future, the efficiency of debris clearance from the canal space should be evaluated in a closed-canal system in conjunction with agitation devices such as sonic and ultrasonic agitation systems as well as devices that incorporate an apical negative pressure approach.

The washing time
Studies have shown that the optimal working time for ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid is 15 minutes after which no chelating action can be expected, because of the self-limiting decalcifying action of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid ^[21]. Calt et al ^[21] from their study concluded that 10 mL of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid followed by NaOCl completely removed the smear layer in 1 minute. The applications of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid for 10 minutes caused erosion of peritubular and intertubular dentin. Thus they recommended not prolonging the washing time to longer than 1 minute. In a comparative study of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, 10% citric acid, and 37% phosphoric acid, with time period of 30 seconds, 1 minute and 3 minutes, none of the experimental solutions could remove the smear layer effectively within 30 seconds. In the 1-minute time period, the phosphoric acid solution showed better results than other substances evaluated. In the 3-minute time period, all the substances worked well in the middle and cervical thirds although phosphoric acid solution showed excellent smear layer removal even in the apical thirds[22]. Studies on NaviTip FX demonstrated them to be effective in smear layer removal with both the 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid solution^[24] and 19% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid viscous gel (FileEze)[23] in 1 minute. It may be attributed to the effective penetration of the irrigation needle combined with longer irrigation time which exposed the root canal to a higher volume and better flow of irrigates. Study by Kuah et al ^[15] also showed that a 1-minute application of ultrasonically agitated 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid efficiently removed the smear layer and debris in the apical region of the root canal. A study by Salman et al ^[25] in human molar root canals showed 30-second passive agitation of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid with the Sonic is Canal Brush improved root canal cleanliness via debris removal and smear layer reduction. In contrast to this using the Max-Ⅰ-Probe irrigating tip, Saito et al ^[26] demonstrated that reducing the irrigation time with 1 mL of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid to 30 or 15 seconds significantly decreased smear layer removal compared with a 1-minute rinse. Depending on the canal master apical size, curvature, and taper, the optimal regimen suggested for effectively removing the smear layer in root canals was a final rinse with 1 mL of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid for 1 minute followed by a 3 mL rinse with 6% NaOCl. When the exposure time of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and 2.5% NaOCl was increased from 1 minute to 5 minutes, there was more calcium ion removal from the root. This may decrease the micro hardness of the root canal and the dentinal erosion may interfere with proper adhesion of endodontic sealers and adhesive cements^[27]. Thus the majority of the studies suggest 1 minute being the most appropriate time for application of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Increasing the washing time has been found to be deleterious to the root canal dentin. However, the protocols followed by different studies might be different and the similarity in results is just not sufficient to lead to conclusions. Further studies are still necessary to be carried out in search for the ideal washing time of the root canal irrigate.

The concentration of chelating agent
Different studies have compared the smear layer removal capacity of different concentrations of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Concentration as high as 24% to as low as 1% of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid has been studied for efficient smear layer removal and to minimize the dentinal erosion. Studies have shown that the ability of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid to remove the smear layer has no significant correlation with the concentration. 3% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and 24% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid have the same efficiency in smear layer removal. Concentration as low as 1% has the capacity to remove the smear layer^[28]. Irrespective of their concentration, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid can cause erosion of the dentin when used as a root canal irrigate except 1% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid which demonstrates limited erosion^[29]. However 10%-17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid has been shown to be particularly effective in the removal of organic and inorganic debris without weakening the tooth when used in combination with NaOCl (2.5%-5%)^[18]. In another study by Silva et al ^[30], Smear Clear (17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid + cetrimide + surfactant) was able to remove the smear layer from the root canals of permanent teeth as effectively as 14.3% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. From the results of above studies, it is seen that irrespective of concentrations ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid could remove the smear layer if other elements such as time, pH were appropriate and limited erosion was seen with low concentration of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. However, these data are not sufficient to reach to a conclusion and still further studies are necessary to find the appropriate concentration of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. Acid solutions have been recommended for removing the smear layer, including sodium salt of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, most active at a concentration of 15%–17% and pH of 7–8; citric acid solutions used at concentrations of 10%, 25%, and 50%; and orthophosphoric acid at concentrations of 10%, 32%, and 37%^[31]. Currently, the chelating agents like ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid are extensively being used to remove the smear layer formed during the chemo-mechanical preparation of the root canals. However, there are few studies comparing the action of these chelating agents in their liquid and gel forms. Wadhwani’s study^[32] evaluated the ability of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid solution and 19% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid gel to remove debris and smear layer produced during root canal preparation with two NiTi files systems, Mtwo and Protaper. The experimental results showed that there was no statistically significant difference in the varied instruments used (Mtwo and Protaper files), and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid solution and 19% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid gel. They believed that both the NiTi instruments produced a similar dentin surface on the root canal wall when used with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid gel and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid solution. The use of lubricant gel is recommended with all rotary endodontic instruments, as it acts as a cheater as well as a lubricant. As most of the gels available have ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid as one of the main constituents, it is recommended that instead of 17% liquid ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, 19% gel should be preferred as the lubricant and smear layer removal. Although the action of gel and solution forms of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid are the same, the advantage of lubricant in gel form is that it does not extrude from the root canal. Hence, gel should be preferred over liquid ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid because of its thyrotrophic nature.

The pH of chelating agent
The chelating efficiency of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid at high pH is reported to be greater due to a higher ratio of ionized to no ionized molecules in the solution. At high pH values, the excess number of hydroxyl groups will slow down the dissociation of hydroxyapatite, thus limiting the number of Ca²⁺ available. At low or neutral pH, the binding of Ca²⁺ will tend to increase the dissociation of hydroxyapatite and its availability for chelating[33]. In a comparative study of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (pH-7) and 7% malefic acid (pH-1.04) for the evaluation of decalcifying effect on root canal dentin, malefic acid reduced the Ca²⁺/PO₄^3- ratio significantly more than ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid up to 5 minutes. At 10 and 15 minutes, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid also significantly removed more Ca²⁺ and PO₄^3-. The faster action of malefic acid has been attributed to its acidic pH compared with that of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid ^[34]. Serper et al ^{[29, 35]} had similar conclusions that ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid is more effective at neutral pH than when it is applied at pH 9.0. Then, Serper^[29] confirmed that the dematerializing effect measured as the amount of released phosphorus is stronger for solutions with a pH of 7.5 as compared to solutions with pH of 9.0. In another experiment by Calt et al ^[21] using 10-minute application of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, pH 7.4 excessive per tubular and inter tubular dentinal erosion was observed. pH of the ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid solution showed little or no alteration throughout the observation period. Thus they concluded that to reduce erosive effects of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid solutions during prolonged cleaning and shaping of root canals, lower concentrations of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid should be used at neutral pH.

The root canal preparation size and taper of the apical
Literature has shown that apical enlargement and deeper positioning of the irrigation needle are required to clean the apical third of the root canal^[36-37]. Khademi et al ^[38] found that apical instrumentation to a #30 size file with 0.06 coronal taper was effective for the removal of debris and smear layer from the apical portion of root canals. In a study on straight root canal tooth by Goel et al, the NaviTipFX brushes showed almost complete removal of the smear layer and debris at the apical third, with no significant difference between the apical, middle and coronal thirds^[24]. Continuous delivery of irrigate (17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) at the apical third and better mechanical debridement with active scrubbing may be the reason for the better cleaning. The design of the NaviTipFX allows it to reach up to the apex and at the same time actively scrubs the canal wall while concomitantly delivering the irrigates. This mechanical activation might have enhanced the chemical action of the irrigate in removing the smear layer and debris simulating the cleansing effect of a bottle brush. This result is supported by Batista et al ^[39] who proposed that neither time of application nor concentration of the irrigates was responsible for removal of the smear layer; it was the method of application that was more important. Similarly, the Self Adjusting File operated with the continuous flow of irrigates alternating between NaOCl and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, resulted in root canals that were free of debris and almost free of smear layer even in the apical third of the canal^[40]. Huang et al ^[41] devised a test model to test the efficacy of irrigation (dynamic/static) in removing a bio-molecular film from root canal walls and found that both the dynamic and static irrigation could not completely remove the collagen bio-molecular film. Factors influencing its removal, in descending order of priority, were: corona-apical level, apical size and taper of canal preparation, and dynamic/static irrigation.
The first finding of Arvaniti’s study^[42] was that root canal taper did not affect its debridement. The experimental result can be compared with those of some previous studies. Lee and Van der Sluis et al ^[43-44] prepared root canals with GT files Series 20 and studied the influence of root canal taper on debris removal. According to their results, the increase in taper led to better debridement. Albrecht et al ^[45] reported that when canals were prepared with GT files size 20 (DENTSPLY/Maillefer), the increase in taper led to better debridement, whereas when the apical preparation size was 40, taper had no influence on debris removal. It was concluded that root canal debridement is mainly affected by final instrument size and to a lesser extent by canal taper. The influence of final instrument size on root canal cleanliness was also studied by Usman et al ^[46], who reported that root canal instrumentation with GT file 40/0.06 led to significantly better debris removal than with GT file 20/0.06. In Arvaniti’s study^[42], root canals were prepared with GT files size 30, and no statistically significant differences were found between groups of different tapers. They could conclude that the root canal taper can affect its debridement only when final instrument size is smaller than 30. However, we believe that this conclusion needs further investigation.

Action of chelating agents on root canal dentin and per apical tissues
In a comparative study on micro hardness of root canal lumen dentin using chelating solutions: 15% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, 10% citric acid, 5% malice acid, 5% acetic acid, apple vinegar and 10% sodium citrate, 15% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and 10% citric acid were found to be more effective. The solutions reduced the micro hardness of the most superficial dentin layer of the root canal lumen facilitating the biomechanical preparation^[5]. Most of the studies have confirmed that ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid in combination with NaOCl causes peritubular and intertubular dentinal erosion when applied for the removal of smear layer. In a comparative study of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and a mixture of doxycycline, citric acid and a detergent found that both the solutions were effective in removing the smear layer. However, the middle and cervical thirds of the root dentin showed erosion of tubules when exposed to ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid for about 5 minutes ^[8]. An in vitro experiment by Verdelis et al ^[47] showed that dentin demineralization was higher at the middle and cervical thirds than at the apical one third. This may reduce the diffusion of irrigating solutions, root canal dressings and medicaments into the apical dentin which reduces the proper adhesion of sealers decreasing the resistance to bacterial penetration. Segura et al ^[48] demonstrated that ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid concentrations lower than those used in root canal preparation inhibited vocative intestinal peptide binding to macrophage membranes. This result suggests that ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid leakage during root canal preparations could modify inflammatory reactions in peripheral apical tissues. The study by Calt and Serper^[49] suggested that the inhibitory effect of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid on vocative intestinal peptide binding wa s caused not only by chelating of calcium ions, but also by chelating of other divalent cautions, such as Mg²⁺. Thus, during delivery of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid caution should be taken to avoid apical extrusion. It is generally believed that the teeth after undergoing endodontic treatment becomes more weak and brittle. In an in vitro study by Machnick et al ^[50], dentin bars were exposed to 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, a mixture of doxycycline, citric acid and a detergent and 0.6% NaOCl for 2 hours, showing a significant reduction in the modulus of elasticity and flexural strength. However, the dentin bars exposed to the higher concentration of NaOCl did not show significant alteration in their modulus of elasticity and flexural strength. According to the above studies, it can be concluded that ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid has a wide range of influence both on the dentin and peripheral apical tissues. In the dentin, it decreases the micro hardness facilitating biomechanical preparation; causes tubular erosion which interferes with root canal fillings and restoration and decreases the modulus of elasticity rendering it more brittle. On the piratical tissues, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid interferes with inflammatory process. Thus from the above mentioned studies, it can be concluded that the most deleterious effect that ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid has erosion of the dentin which can be minimized by reducing the exposure to 1 minute. This reduces the surface irregularities presenting on the dentin and enamel surfaces and when in contact with root canal filling materials and restorations the tissues closely adapt to them. The tight periodical seal thus decreases the bacterial penetration and finally enhances the success of the root canal treatment.

ADVANCES

Chelating agents used to remove the smear layer cause disinfection of the deeper layers, increase thickness of root canal filling materials and increase the success of root canal treatment.

(1) The effectiveness of the chelating agent to remove the smear layer is affected by different factors. Such as the chelating agent concentration, reaction time, the flushing fluid transport, and other fluid of synergy, the root canal morphology, including the operating time and concentration is a major factor.

(2) The effect on dentin: The alternate irrigation of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and sodium hypochlorite can effectively remove the smear layer. Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid simultaneously dissolves the inorganic components of the smear layer and causes peritubular and intertubular dentin erosion. Further studies are to be carried out to find out whether it has other deleterious effects on tooth, such as discoloration.

(3) The joint problem: Till date no single root canal irrigating agent has been developed that can completely remove the smear layer, and therefore, a combination of two or three kinds of irrigating agents are always used. The combination of sodium hypochlorite or organic acid with chelating agents is the most widely used for the efficient removal of smear layer. In recent years, some new chelating agents like tetracycline have been the focus of attention as an ideal irrigate. Due to its short shelf life and high cost, the irrigate material is still on its experimental research stage. The chelating agent most widely used today is efficient in removing the smear layer and its ability is further enhanced when used in combination with other root canal irrigates though the best combination is still to be explored.

[1] Singla MG, Garg A, Gupta S. MTAD in endodontics: an update review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;112(3):e70-76. [2] Torabinejad M, Handysides R, Khademi AA, et al. Clinical implications of the smear layer in endodontics: a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002; 94(6):658-666. [3] Pashley DH. Smear layer: overview of structure and function. Proc Finn Dent Soc. 1992;88 Suppl 1:215-224. [4] Violich DR, Chandler NP. The smear layer in endodontics - a review. Int Endod J. 2010;43(1):2-15. [5] Cruz-Filho AM, Sousa-Neto MD, Savioli RN, et al. Effect of chelating solutions on the microhardness of root canal lumen dentin. J Endod. 2011;37(3):358-362. [6] Saleh AA, Ettman WM. Effect of endodontic irrigation solutions on microhardness of root canal dentine. J Dent. 1999;27(1):43-46. [7] Hülsmann M, Heckendorff M, Lennon A. Chelating agents in root canal treatment: mode of action and indications for their use. Int Endod J. 2003;36(12):810-830. [8] Torabinejad M, Khademi AA, Babagoli J, et al. A new solution for the removal of the smear layer. J Endod. 2003; 29(3):170-175. [9] Hennequin M, Pajot J, Avignant D. Effects of different pH values of citric acid solutions on the calcium and phosphorus contents of human root dentin. J Endod. 1994;20(11):551-554. [10] Sayin TC, Serper A, Cehreli ZC, et al. The effect of EDTA, EGTA, EDTAC, and tetracycline-HCl with and without subsequent NaOCl treatment on the microhardness of root canal dentin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007;104(3):418-424. [11] Do?an H, Qalt S. Effects of chelating agents and sodium hypochlorite on mineral content of root dentin. J Endod. 2001;27(9):578-580. [12] de Gregorio C, Estevez R, Cisneros R, et al. Efficacy of different irrigation and activation systems on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into simulated lateral canals and up to working length: an in vitro study. J Endod. 2010;36(7): 1216-1221. [13] Clarkson RM, Podlich HM, Moule AJ. Influence of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid on the active chlorine content of sodium hypochlorite solutions when mixed in various proportions. J Endod. 2011;37(4):538-543. [14] Uroz-Torres D, González-Rodríguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM. Effectiveness of the EndoActivator System in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation. J Endod. 2010;36(2):308-311. [15] Kuah HG, Lui JN, Tseng PS, et al. The effect of EDTA with and without ultrasonics on removal of the smear layer. J Endod. 2009;35(3):393-396. [16] Crumpton BJ, Goodell GG, McClanahan SB. Effects on smear layer and debris removal with varying volumes of 17% REDTA after rotary instrumentation. J Endod. 2005; 31(7):536-538. [17] Mello I, Robazza CR, Antoniazzi JH, et al. Influence of different volumes of EDTA for final rinse on smear layer removal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;106(5):e40-43. [18] Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J, et al. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod. 2009; 35(6):791-804. [19] Tay FR, Gu LS, Schoeffel GJ, et al. Effect of vapor lock on root canal debridement by using a side-vented needle for positive-pressure irrigant delivery. J Endod. 2010;36(4): 745-750. [20] Dai L, Khechen K, Khan S, et al. The effect of QMix, an experimental antibacterial root canal irrigant, on removal of canal wall smear layer and debris. J Endod. 2011;37(1): 80-84. [21] Calt S, Serper A. Time-dependent effects of EDTA on dentin structures. J Endod. 2002;28(1):17-19. [22] Prado M, Gusman H, Gomes BP, et al. Scanning electron microscopic investigation of the effectiveness of phosphoric acid in smear layer removal when compared with EDTA and citric acid. J Endod. 2011;37(2):255-258. [23] Zmener O, Pameijer CH, Serrano SA, et al. Efficacy of the NaviTip FX irrigation needle in removing post instrumentation canal smear layer and debris in curved root canals. J Endod. 2009;35(9):1270-1273. [24] Goel S, Tewari S. Smear layer removal with passive ultrasonic irrigation and the NaviTip FX: a scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;108(3):465-470. [25] Salman MI, Baumann MA, Hellmich M, et al. SEM evaluation of root canal debridement with Sonicare CanalBrush irrigation. Int Endod J. 2010;43(5):363-369. [26] Saito K, Webb TD, Imamura GM, et al. Effect of shortened irrigation times with 17% ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid on smear layer removal after rotary canal instrumentation. J Endod. 2008;34(8):1011-1014. [27] Sayin TC, Serper A, Cehreli ZC, et al. Calcium loss from root canal dentin following EDTA, EGTA, EDTAC, and tetracycline-HCl treatment with or without subsequent NaOCl irrigation. J Endod. 2007;33(5):581-584. [28] Sen BH, Ertürk O, Pi?kin B. The effect of different concentrations of EDTA on instrumented root canal walls. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 108(4):622-627. [29] Serper A, Calt S. The demineralizing effects of EDTA at different concentrations and pH. J Endod. 2002;28(7): 501-502. [30] da Silva LA, Sanguino AC, Rocha CT, et al. Scanning electron microscopic preliminary study of the efficacy of SmearClear and EDTA for smear layer removal after root canal instrumentation in permanent teeth. J Endod. 2008;34(12):1541-1544. [31] Pérez-Heredia M, Ferrer-Luque CM, González-Rodríguez MP. The effectiveness of different acid irrigating solutions in root canal cleaning after hand and rotary instrumentation. J Endod. 2006;32(10):993-997. [32] Wadhwani KK, Tikku AP, Chandra A, et al. A comparative evaluation of smear layer removal using two rotary instrument systems with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid in different states: a SEM study. Indian J Dent Res. 2011;22(1): 10-15. [33] O'Connell MS, Morgan LA, Beeler WJ, et al. A comparative study of smear layer removal using different salts of EDTA. J Endod. 2000;26(12):739-743. [34] Ballal NV, Mala K, Bhat KS. Evaluation of decalcifying effect of maleic acid and EDTA on root canal dentin using energy dispersive spectrometer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;112(2):e78-84. [35] Cury JA, Bragotto C, Valdrighi L. The demineralizing efficiency of EDTA solutions on dentin. I. Influence of pH. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1981;52(4):446-448. [36] Sedgley CM, Nagel AC, Hall D, et al. Influence of irrigant needle depth in removing bioluminescent bacteria inoculated into instrumented root canals using real-time imaging in vitro. Int Endod J. 2005;38(2):97-104. [37] Falk KW, Sedgley CM. The influence of preparation size on the mechanical efficacy of root canal irrigation in vitro. J Endod. 2005;31(10):742-745. [38] Khademi A, Yazdizadeh M, Feizianfard M. Determination of the minimum instrumentation size for penetration of irrigants to the apical third of root canal systems. J Endod. 2006;32(5):417-420. [39] Carvalho Batista LH, Cezar Sampaio JE, et al. Efficacy of EDTA-T gel for smear layer removal at root surfaces. Quintessence Int. 2005;36(7-8):551-558. [40] Metzger Z, Teperovich E, Cohen R, et al. The self-adjusting file (SAF). Part 3: removal of debris and smear layer-A scanning electron microscope study. J Endod. 2010;36(4): 697-702. [41] Huang TY, Gulabivala K, Ng YL. A bio-molecular film ex-vivo model to evaluate the influence of canal dimensions and irrigation variables on the efficacy of irrigation. Int Endod J. 2008;41(1):60-71. [42] Arvaniti IS, Khabbaz MG. Influence of root canal taper on its cleanliness: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2011;37(6):871-874. [43] Lee SJ, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. The efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation to remove artificially placed dentine debris from different-sized simulated plastic root canals. Int Endod J. 2004;37(9):607-612. [44] van der Sluis LW, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. The efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation to remove artificially placed dentine debris from human root canals prepared using instruments of varying taper. Int Endod J. 2005;38(10):764-768. [45] Albrecht LJ, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Evaluation of apical debris removal using various sizes and tapers of ProFile GT files. J Endod. 2004;30(6):425-428. [46] Usman N, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Influence of instrument size on root canal debridement. J Endod. 2004;30(2):110-112. [47] Verdelis K, Eliades G, Oviir T, et al. Effect of chelating agents on the molecular composition and extent of decalcification at cervical, middle and apical root dentin locations. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1999;15(4):164-170. [48] Segura JJ, Calvo JR, Guerrero JM, et al. The disodium salt of EDTA inhibits the binding of vasoactive intestinal peptide to macrophage membranes: endodontic implications. J Endod. 1996;22(7):337-340. [49] Calt S, Serper A. Smear layer removal by EGTA. J Endod. 2000;26(8):459-461. [50] Machnick TK, Torabinejad M, Munoz CA, et al. Effect of MTAD on flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of dentin. J Endod. 2003;29(11):747-750.

[1]	李 黎, 马 力. 磁性壳聚糖微球固定化乳糖酶及其酶学性质[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(4): 576-581.
[2]	刘 鋆, 杨 龙, 王伟宇, 周玉虎, 吴 颖, 卢 涛, 舒莉萍, 马敏先, 叶 川. 聚3-羟基丁酸酯4-羟基丁酸酯/聚乙二醇/氧化石墨烯组织工程支架的制备和性能评价[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(22): 3466-3472.
[3]	周安琪, 唐渝菲, 吴秉峰, 向 琳. 骨膜组织工程设计：共性与个性的结合[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(22): 3551-3557.
[4]	郎丽敏, 何 生, 姜增誉, 胡奕奕, 张智星, 梁敏茜. 导电复合材料在心肌梗死组织工程治疗领域的应用进展[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(22): 3584-3590.
[5]	解 健, 苏俭生. 静电纺丝取向纳米纤维作为组织工程生物支架的优势与特征[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(16): 2575-2581.
[6]	纪 琦, 喻正文, 张 剑. 3D打印金属基生物材料工艺和临床应用的问题与趋势[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(16): 2597-2604.
[7]	宋涯含, 吴云霞, 范道洋. 基于VOSviewer生物医学领域3D打印的知识图谱分析[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(15): 2385-2393.
[8]	钱楠楠, 张 潜, 杨 睿, 敖 俊, 章 涛. 间充质干细胞治疗脊髓损伤：细胞治疗及联合新药和生物材料[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(13): 2114-2120.
[9]	罗雅馨, 毕浩然, 陈晓旭, 杨 琨. 细胞外基质与组织的再生与修复[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(11): 1785-1790.
[10]	贾 巍, 张满栋, 陈维毅, 王晨艳, 郭 媛. 股骨假体材料对人工膝关节置换性能的影响[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(10): 1477-1481.
[11]	赵彬彬, 仲维剑, 马国武, 李永奇, 王 宁. 三种不同骨移植材料成骨效果的比较[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(10): 1507-1510.
[12]	王 倩, 李 璐, 舒静媛, 董志恒, 靳友士, 王青山. 氧化锆基纳米羟基磷灰石功能梯度生物材料的微观形貌和物相分析[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(10): 1517-1521.
[13]	顾远平, 卢成辉. 扫描电镜评价两种机用镍钛器械预备重度弯曲根管的清理效果[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(10): 1566-1570.
[14]	杨亚楠, 李峻峰, 王 立, 刘恒全, 赖雪飞. 柠檬酸钙：一种有趣的有机钙生物医用材料[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2021, 25(10): 1609-1615.
[15]	王 刚, 李东辉, 白志明. 长段输尿管损伤替代治疗的方法、材料及修复重建的演变历程[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2020, 24(8): 1299-1305.

The success of the endodontic treatment depends on the thorough debridement of the root canal^[1]. The instrumentation in the root canals produces a smear layer that covers the surface of the root canal walls^[2]. This layer contains inorganic and organic substances, such as fragments of odontoblastic processes, necrotic debris and pathogenic microorganisms in case of infected root canals^[3].

Though there are initial controversies on smear layer removal, a recent review recommends its removal for more thorough disinfection of the root canal system and better adaptation of filling materials to canal walls^[4]. To remove the smear layer, various root canal irritants have been developed. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) is the most commonly used root canal irritant. It is an antiseptic and inexpensive lubricant that has been used in dilutions ranging from 0.5% to 5.25%. Advantages of NaOCl include its ability to dissolve organic substances present in the root canal system and its affordability. Unpleasant taste, high toxicity and inability to remove smear layer when used alone are its limitations. Thus for the removal of the inorganic portion of the smear layer, chelating agents, such as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, citric acid and tetracycline, are used.

The use of chelating agents during the biomechanical preparation of root canals removes the smear layer, increasing the access of the irritant into the dentinal tubules to allow adequate disinfection and reduce dentin micro hardness, facilitating the access and action of endodontic instruments in narrow and calcified root canals^[5]. The efficiency of the chelating agent depends upon its quantity, concentration, pH duration of application and other root canal irritants used in association. The root canal morphology includes the length of the root canal, the curvatures, lateral ramifications and the preparation size of the canal, which also influence the efficiency of chelating agents.

Erosion of the peritubular and intertubular dentin has been observed with the use of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid as a root canal irritant. Erosion has been a focus of attention in recent years since it may be the cause for root canal treatment failure. Alteration in dentin and enamel surface affects the proper adhesion of root canal filling materials and also the restorative materials used for coronal seal which may decrease the resistance to penetration of bacteria and thus lead to the coronal leakage^[6]. The type, concentration, pH, amount and application time of the chelating agents affect the erosion of the dentin.

1  影响螯合剂去除玷污层的主要因素是冲洗时间和冲洗液配伍，螯合剂对牙本质小管侵蚀的作用时间越长，破坏越大。

2  超声的震荡可以增强螯合剂的作用能力，更快速度到达根尖区，其与次氯酸钠联合应用可提高去除玷污层的效能。

1玷污层：

指根管预备时压贴在根管壁上的由细菌、坏死组织及扩锉下来的牙本质碎屑组成的混合物；厚度2-5μm，可贴附在牙本质表面，也可能深入到牙本质小管内是根管治疗过程中或填后微生物生长和定植的底物和微渗漏的通道；阻止或延迟消毒剂对牙本质小管中细菌的作用；妨碍根充材料与根管壁的渗透和紧密贴合。

2螯合物：

配合物的一种，在螯合物的结构中，一定有1个或多个多齿配体提供多对电子与中心体形成配位键。螯合物通常比一般配合物要稳定，其结构中经常具有的五或六元环结构更增强了稳定性。正因为这样，螯合物的稳定常数都非常高，许多螯合反应都是定量进行的，可以用来滴定。使用螯合物还可以掩蔽金属离子。

螯合物在工业中用来除去金属杂质，如水的软化、去除有毒的重金属离子等。一些生命必须的物质是螯合物，如血红蛋白和叶绿素中卟啉环上的4个氮原子把金属原子（血红蛋白含Fe²⁺，叶绿素含Mg²⁺）固定在环中心。

	阅读次数
	全文
	摘要