| Autor: |
AlFarm, Khalid Sultan, AlQahtani, Ali Muidh Mashub, AlAloula, Abdulrahman Saleh, AlHakeem, Aseel Raafat, Alshamrani, Mohammed Maqbol, AlQahtani, Abdulaziz Mohammed, Ansari, Shahzeb Hasan |
| Zdroj: |
Pharmacophore; Sep/Oct2020, Vol. 11 Issue 5, p156-162, 7p |
| Abstrakt: |
One of the main goals of intracanal treatments is eliminating bacteria from the root canal with increased success. Due to its bactericidal characteristics, Chlorhexidine has been traditionally recommended as a root canal medication. Other intracanal medications used alongside Chlorhexidine, such as sodium hydroxide, enhance pulpal soft tissue dissolution by using sodium hypochlorite. However, sodium hydroxide is also known to be ineffective against Enterococcus faecalis and its tubular infection. Enterococcus faecalis is an organism that is commonly associated with failure in root canal therapy during its isolation. On the other hand, besides some drawbacks, Chlorhexidine has been reported to kill significant levels of Enterococcus faecalis in the root canal. Consequently, the advantages and disadvantages of Chlorhexidine in root canal treatment put its efficacy into question. Employing a systematic review, in this paper, we respond to the PICO question, "What is the efficacy of chlorhexidine as an intracanal treatment in root canal medication?" The findings of the review have implications that Chlorhexidine is an effective root canal treatment. The study concluded that intracanal medication is an efficient form of therapy in intracanal medication with Chlorhexidine as a potent root canal treatment agent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
