Aim: This study aimed to compare ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), phytic acid, and citric acid as chelation agents in final irrigation procedures on teeth with apical impermeability.
 Methodology: We used 66 mandibular premolar teeth with a single root and single canal extracted for periodontal or orthodontic reasons. All teeth crowns were removed to achieve a 14-mm root length. Mechanical preparation of the root canal was completed with a Reciproc R25 (VDW, Munich, Germany) file system. Teeth were randomly separated into three groups: Group 1: 5 ml 17% EDTA, Group 2: 5 ml 1% phytic acid, and Group 3: 5 ml 20% citric acid. We used 6 ml 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) in the mechanical preparation of all groups. Three teeth were selected for both the positive and negative control groups. All teeth in the experimental groups were filled by the lateral condensation method using AH Plus canal sealer and gutta-percha. For hardening of the canal sealer, samples were kept at 37 oC and at 100% humidity in a drying oven for 7 days. Later, following removal from the drying oven, two layers of nail polish were used to cover all but the apical 2 mm of each tooth. The teeth were then kept in 2% methylene blue solution at 37 oC for 7 days. The root was divided by cutting in the buccolingual direction and gutta-percha was removed. The dye leakage was measured linearly in millimeters (mm) under a stereomicroscope.
 Results: As a result of the apical leakage assessment, the lowest apical leakage is observed in the phytic acid group. There was a statistically significant difference between the phytic acid group and citric acid group. There was no statistically significant difference between other groups.
 Conclusion: While phytic acid showed similar results with EDTA on apical impermeability, it was more effective than citric acid.
 
 How to cite this article: Akın Tartuk G, Kaya S, Adıgüzel Ö. The effect of different final irrigation solutions on apical impermeability. Int Dent Res 2021;11(Suppl.1):201-5. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.suppl1.28
 
 Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.