World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 2 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2011 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Antibacterial Effects of Various Root Canal Irrigants on Enterococcus faecalis

G Vinay Kumar, Veerendra Uppin, Arvind Shenoy

Citation Information : Kumar GV, Uppin V, Shenoy A. Comparison of Antibacterial Effects of Various Root Canal Irrigants on Enterococcus faecalis. World J Dent 2011; 2 (3):211-215.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1085

Published Online: 01-09-2011

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2011; The Author(s).


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.


PDF Share
  1. Comparison of antibacterial and toxic effects of various root canal irrigants. Int Endod J June 2003;36(6): 423-32.
  2. Survival of Enterococcus faecalis in root canals ex vivo. Int Endod J May 2005;38: 735-42.
  3. Antimicrobial activity of different concentarations of NaOCl and chlorhexidine using a contact test. Braz Dent J 2003;14(2): 99-102.
  4. In vitro assessment of the antimicrobial action and the mechanical ability of chlorhexidine gel as an endodontic irrigant. J Endod July 2001;27(7):452-55.
  5. Antimicrobial activity of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite and 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate separately and combined as endodontic irrigants. J Endod July 1998;24(7): 472-76.
  6. An evaluation of the action of different root canal irrigants on facultative aerobicanaerobic, obligate anaerobic, and microaerophilic bacteria. J Endod May 1999;25(5):351-53.
  7. In vitro antimicrobial activity of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate in the elimination of Enterococcus. Int Endod J Sep 2001;34(6):424-28.
  8. Difco manual of dehydrated culture media and reagents for microbiological and clinical laboratory procedures (9th ed): 1977.
  9. In vivo antimicrobial activity of 2% chlorhexidine used as a root canal irrigating solution. J Endod Mar 1999;25(3):167-71.
  10. Comparison of the antimicrobial activity of six irrigants on primary endodontic pathogens. J Endod June 2005;31(6):471-73.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.