(i) To compare chlorhexidine and QMixTM in terms of orange-brown precipitate generation in root canals and (ii) to analyse the precipitate produced by mixing chlorhexidine and QMix™ with NaOCl to determine whether para-chloroaniline was produced.Methodology
The root canals of 57 single-rooted anterior teeth were prepared using ProTaper Universal rotary instruments up to size F4. Two millilitres of 2.5% NaOCl was used between each instrument change. The specimens were then divided randomly into three groups (n = 19) and irrigated as follows: group 1, 5 mL of distilled water (control group) for 60 s; group 2, 5 mL of 2% chlorhexidine for 60 s; and group 3, 5 mL of QMix for 60 s. The roots were split longitudinally, and one of the halves was photographed using a stereomicroscope. The amount of orange-brown precipitate was evaluated using a four-grade scoring system. The data were analysed statistically using the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U-tests (P = 0.05). To evaluate whether the precipitates included para-chloroaniline, 5 mL of 2% chlorhexidine and 5 mL QMix were separately mixed with 5 mL of 2.5% NaOCl in two flasks. After centrifugation, precipitates were obtained and analysed using 1H NMR spectra. The data were subjected to statistical analysis using the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests at a 95% confidence level (P = 0.05).Results
Chlorhexidine had significantly higher scores than QMix™ in terms of orange-brown precipitate formed in the root canals (P < 0.001). According to the 1H NMR spectra, para-chloroaniline was present in the mixture of chlorhexidine and NaOCl. However, the mixture of QMix™ and NaOCl did not result in para-chloroaniline formation.Conclusion
QMix™ does not form para-chloroaniline when associated with NaOCl.