Combined Antibacterial Effect of Sodium Hypochlorite and Root Canal Sealers against Enterococcus faecalis Biofilms in Dentin Canals

ABSTRACT Aims To compare the antibacterial effects of various root canal irrigants against E.faecalis. Irrigants tested were 5.25% NaOCl, 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate, and 0.2% cetrimide individually and combined. Materials and methods Root canal preparation was performed on 120 extracted permanent maxillary central and lateral incisor teeth. Following root canal preparation, apical foramina were sealed with epoxy resin to prevent bacterial leakage. The root canals were then contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis. After incubation, the contaminated roots were divided into four groups of 30 each. 2 mm of irrigant was delivered which remained in the canal for 10 minutes. The canals were then irrigated with 1 ml saline solution and with size 45 sterile paper point bacteria were sampled. The growth of E. faecalis which occurred in the tubes was inoculated onto blood agar plates. Statistical analysis Difference between the antibacterial efficacies of irrigants was evaluated statistically using chi-square test. Results There was no significant difference between the antibacterial efficacies of 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate alone and 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate with 0.2% cetrimide, but both had a significantly lower antibacterial effect than 5.25% sodium hypochlorite and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate. This difference was statistically significant. Conclusions Within limitations of this study, it was concluded that the 5.25% sodium hypochlorite and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate had a higher antibacterial effect than 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate alone and 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate with cetrimide. There was no significant difference between the antibacterial efficacies of 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate alone and 0.25% chlorhexidine with certrimide.

Download Full-text

In vitro Pharmacodynamic Activities of Root Canal Sealers on Enterococcus faecalis

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice ◽

10.5005/jcdp-10-3-35 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 10 (3) ◽

pp. 35-42 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Özgür Er ◽

Burak Sagsen ◽

Duygu Esel ◽

Gülhan Yagmur ◽

Yasemin Altintop

Keyword(s):

Enterococcus Faecalis ◽

Root Canal ◽

Antibacterial Effect ◽

Time Intervals ◽

Antimicrobial Efficiency ◽

Ah Plus ◽

Time Periods ◽

Time Kill ◽

Root Canal Sealers

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial efficiency of different root canal sealers on Enterococcus faecalis (E. Faecalis) at different time intervals. Methods and Materials All sealers used were mixed according to the manufacturers’ instructions then 75 mg of each sealer was added to different sterile tubes and evaluated at 20 minutes, 24 hours, 7 days, and 30 days. A time-kill assay (TKA) was used to determine the antimicrobial efficiency of the sealers. Results AH Plus and MCS were found to be bactericidal at 20 minutes and 24 hours, but only MCS was bactericidal at the seventh and thirtieth days. Epiphany and Sealapex were found to be bacteriostatic at the seventh and thirtieth days but indifferent at 20 minutes and 24-hours. MCS and AH Plus were both found to be bactericidal in freshly mixed samples, but only MCS was bactericidal at longer time periods. Epiphany Sealer and Sealapex were found to be bacteriostatic at longer time periods but indifferent at 20 minutes and 24 hours. Conclusion The antibacterial effect of MCS was greater than the other sealers evaluated. Clinical Significance Sealers containing eugenol and epoxy resin might be preferable due to their antibacterial effect. Citation Sagsen B, Er O, Esel D, Yagmur G, Altintop Y. In vitro Pharmacodynamic Activities of Root Canal Sealers on Enterococcus faecalis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009 May; (10)3:035-042.

Download Full-text

Antibacterial effect of sodium hypochlorite gel on Enterococcus faecalis in endodontics: A systematic review

International Dental Research ◽

10.5577/intdentres.2020.vol10.no1.5 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. 22-29

Author(s):

Salma Fuad Al Nesser ◽

Nada George Bshara ◽

Özkan Adıgüzel

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Enterococcus Faecalis ◽

Sodium Hypochlorite ◽

Root Canal ◽

Antibacterial Effect ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Publication Date ◽

Sodium Hypochlorite Solution ◽

Root Canal Irrigant

Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the in vitro antibacterial effect of sodium hypochlorite gel on Enterococcus faecalis during root canal treatment. Methods: An electronic databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, Health Advance) was performed (last updated was 1st April 2019). The reference lists of the included studies were hand-searched. Randomized in vitro studies that compared sodium hypochlorite gel to solution as a root canal irrigant were included. No limitation on publication date. Results: Out of 20741 articles, only two studies with 116 human teeth were included in this review. The studies showed 50% high risk of bias, and 50% medium risk of bias for the included studies. Both sodium hypochlorite gel and solution had some bacterial growth inhibition over E. faecalis. The heterogeneity in methodology of the included studies and the lack of high evidence led to contradictory results. However, sodium hypochlorite solution was better in enhancing the antibacterial effect according to the robust study. Conclusion: There is insufficient reliable evidence about the antibacterial effect of sodium hypochlorite gel on enterococcus faecalis. Although the robust study included in this review revealed that sodium hypochlorite gel is less efficient than the solution as a root canal irrigant, further studies are needed to consider the most effective type, concentration, duration and treatment protocols in enhancing the antibacterial effect of sodium hypochlorite. How to cite this article: Al Nesser S, Bshara N, Adıgüzel Ö. Antibacterial effect of sodium hypochlorite gel on Enterococcus faecalis in endodontics: A systematic review. Int Dent Res 2020;10(1):22-29. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2020.vol10.no1.3 Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.

Download Full-text