Antibacterial Action Of The Irrigants Against Enterococcus Faecalis Case Study
Antibacterial action of the irrigants against Enterococcus faecalis in the root canal
The overall percentage reduction of E. faecalis inside the root canal after biomechanical procedures was presented in table1.
All the irrigants significantly reduced bacteria in comparison with positive control group (P< 0.01). The average reduction of bacteria in the presence of E.galbie did not have any significant difference with 2.5% NaOCl, CHX 2%, CHX 0.2% and M.communis L. (P > 0.05). The average reduction of bacteria in the presence of M.communis L. was significantly less than other groups except E.galbie and 0.2% CHX.
Table1. Overall percentage reduction of E. faecalis
Irrigant NaOCl 2.5% NaOCl 5.25% CHX 0.2% CHX 2% M.communis L. E.galbie
Reduction of bacteria (%) 99.98 99.99 99.85 99.96 99.33 99.60
Antibacterial action of the irrigants against Enterococcus faecalis in relation to the depth of dentin
According to Mann-Whitney U analysis, the mean CFU for all experimental groups in all depths, was significantly less than that in the positive control group (P < 0.01).
For all depths, 5.25% NaOCl was shown to be the most effective irrigant solution, followed by 2.5% NaOCl, without any significant difference between them (P > 0.05). E.galbie and M.communis L. groups had significantly less antibacterial effect in comparison with NaOCl (5.25%, 2.5%) …show more content…
At low concentrations of chlorhexidine (CHX), small elements (such as potassium and phosphorous) will leak out and bacteriostatic effect is developed. At higher concentrations, CHX has a bactericidal effect due to coagulation of cytoplasm (10). CHX has some disadvantages, such as inability to dissolve tissue, discoloration of teeth and tongue (25) and rare adverse reactions, including desquamative gingivitis (25) and contact dermatitis
The overall percentage reduction of E. faecalis inside the root canal after biomechanical procedures was presented in table1.
All the irrigants significantly reduced bacteria in comparison with positive control group (P< 0.01). The average reduction of bacteria in the presence of E.galbie did not have any significant difference with 2.5% NaOCl, CHX 2%, CHX 0.2% and M.communis L. (P > 0.05). The average reduction of bacteria in the presence of M.communis L. was significantly less than other groups except E.galbie and 0.2% CHX.
Table1. Overall percentage reduction of E. faecalis
Irrigant NaOCl 2.5% NaOCl 5.25% CHX 0.2% CHX 2% M.communis L. E.galbie
Reduction of bacteria (%) 99.98 99.99 99.85 99.96 99.33 99.60
Antibacterial action of the irrigants against Enterococcus faecalis in relation to the depth of dentin
According to Mann-Whitney U analysis, the mean CFU for all experimental groups in all depths, was significantly less than that in the positive control group (P < 0.01).
For all depths, 5.25% NaOCl was shown to be the most effective irrigant solution, followed by 2.5% NaOCl, without any significant difference between them (P > 0.05). E.galbie and M.communis L. groups had significantly less antibacterial effect in comparison with NaOCl (5.25%, 2.5%) …show more content…
At low concentrations of chlorhexidine (CHX), small elements (such as potassium and phosphorous) will leak out and bacteriostatic effect is developed. At higher concentrations, CHX has a bactericidal effect due to coagulation of cytoplasm (10). CHX has some disadvantages, such as inability to dissolve tissue, discoloration of teeth and tongue (25) and rare adverse reactions, including desquamative gingivitis (25) and contact dermatitis