What Is Sodium Hypochlorite?
INTRODUCTION
Sodium hypochlorite is considered one of the most efficient irrigant in endodontics 1-4. Due to its antimicrobial, tissue dissolving properties and low cost, it is one of the most widely accepted irrigant in Endodontic practice 5-8. Sodium hypochlorite as a solution is relatively an unstable compound. On exposure to organic compounds, heat, light, air and metals, the available chlorine ions reduce and there is subsequent loss of tissue dissolving and antimicrobial properties 9-10. Recent study determined the effect these factors exert on sodium hypochlorite solution in the dental practice environment 11. However, there are no recent data on the incidence of sodium hypochlorite use in endodontics and proportion of dental practitioners
who include it endodontic practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to survey the general practitioners and endodontists on whether endodontic treatment was a part of their practices and the way sodium hypochlorite solution was used.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This cross-sectional survey was conducted in d month of September, 2015. The participants were categorized into Endodontists (group A) and Non-endodontists (group B). A specially designed questionnaire consisting of 15 questions for collecting data were used in this survey. 327 questionnaires were handed over to various dental practitioners across Chennai city, out of which 312 filled questionnaire forms were returned. All the responses were recorded on individual survey forms for each practitioner.
For specialist group practitioners, a single response was duplicated for the remaining members of the group, when the respondent indicated the same concentration of the solution and identical procedures were followed by all the members of the group. If the response was not the same, then individual details were collected from the practitioners.
An initial approach to the selected practices was made by telephone or a visit to their practice. The practitioner was re-approached, if clarifications were required. When the initial response was negative, additional calls were made to the practice and were re-visited. For both the endodontists and general dentists, the survey responses to each question were summarized and expressed as relevant proportions. Comparisons between the non-endodontists and endodontists were made.
Sodium hypochlorite is considered one of the most efficient irrigant in endodontics 1-4. Due to its antimicrobial, tissue dissolving properties and low cost, it is one of the most widely accepted irrigant in Endodontic practice 5-8. Sodium hypochlorite as a solution is relatively an unstable compound. On exposure to organic compounds, heat, light, air and metals, the available chlorine ions reduce and there is subsequent loss of tissue dissolving and antimicrobial properties 9-10. Recent study determined the effect these factors exert on sodium hypochlorite solution in the dental practice environment 11. However, there are no recent data on the incidence of sodium hypochlorite use in endodontics and proportion of dental practitioners
who include it endodontic practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to survey the general practitioners and endodontists on whether endodontic treatment was a part of their practices and the way sodium hypochlorite solution was used.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This cross-sectional survey was conducted in d month of September, 2015. The participants were categorized into Endodontists (group A) and Non-endodontists (group B). A specially designed questionnaire consisting of 15 questions for collecting data were used in this survey. 327 questionnaires were handed over to various dental practitioners across Chennai city, out of which 312 filled questionnaire forms were returned. All the responses were recorded on individual survey forms for each practitioner.
For specialist group practitioners, a single response was duplicated for the remaining members of the group, when the respondent indicated the same concentration of the solution and identical procedures were followed by all the members of the group. If the response was not the same, then individual details were collected from the practitioners.
An initial approach to the selected practices was made by telephone or a visit to their practice. The practitioner was re-approached, if clarifications were required. When the initial response was negative, additional calls were made to the practice and were re-visited. For both the endodontists and general dentists, the survey responses to each question were summarized and expressed as relevant proportions. Comparisons between the non-endodontists and endodontists were made.