Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of MTAD, DMSA (Di Mercaptosuccinic acid), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and chlorhexidine against E. faecalis: An ex-vivo study

Journal Title: IP Indian Journal of Conservative and Endodontics - Year 2017, Vol 2, Issue 4

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the anti-microbial efficacy of four root canal irrigants, MTAD, 10% Di Mercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA), 5.25% Sodium Hypochlorite and 2% Chlorhexidine gluconate against Enterococcus Faecalis. Materials & Methods: 75 extracted single rooted teeth with single canal were selected for this study. Conventional access preparations were made and the canals were instrumented 1 mm beyond the apical foramen with K-files up to size 50. The teeth were autoclaved. Pure culture of E. Faecalis was grown in brain heart infusion broth and was set to 4 Mac Farland’s standard. 5 micro-litre of the broth was used to infect each of the root canal. The teeth were then divided into 5 groups (n=15) according to the irrigant delivered; group 1 was irrigated with MTAD, group 2 with 10% DMSA, group 3 with 5.25% Sodium Hypochlorite, group 4 with 2% Chlorhexidine gluconate and group 5 was irrigated with Normal saline (control group). Samples were collected from the root canals, after 5 minutes and 48 hours of irrigation, with help of absorbent paper points and were immediately transferred to test tubes containing brain heart infusion broth and incubated. Occurrence of broth turbidity was indicative of the viable bacteria remaining in the root canal. The test tubes where turbidity occurred were inoculated onto chocolate Agar plates to check for E. Faecalis. Results were analyzed statistically using Chi-Square test and Mann-Whitney test (p<0.05). Results: Viable bacteria were found in all the canals of the control and 10% DMSA group. No viable bacteria were remaining in canals after 5 min of irrigation with MTAD and CHX whereas 67% of the root canals irrigated with NaOCl showed growth. After 48 hours of irrigation only teeth irrigated with CHX were free from viable bacteria.

Authors and Affiliations

Vivek Kapoor, Ruchi Singla, Rajni Kapoor

Keywords

Related Articles

Evaluation of nanoleakage following deproteinization of dentin – a confocal laser scanning microscopic study

Aim: This study evaluated the amount of nanoleakage following deproteinization of dentin with newer deproteinizing agents such as Ascorbic acid and Zinc Hydroxide. Materials and Method: A total of 40 extracted human prem...

Effectiveness of an in-office calcium-phosphate-based desensitizer: A six-month randomized-controlled trial and a SEM study of in-vivo treated teeth

Aim: The aim of this single-centre, triple-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of an in-office desensitizing agent containing tetracalcium phosphate and dicalcium phosphate anhyd...

Wave one® system: clinical experience on 46 cases

Objective The objective of this study was to evaluate root canal preparation with the Wave One system as well as single cone endodontic obturation techniques and with staked obturators from the same systePmMaterials and...

Root canal sealers: An review

The main function of the sealer is to fill the gaps between the core material and the walls of the root canal A hermetic seal cannot be obtained without the use of a sealer which forms a fluid tight seal and barrier betw...

Efficacy of anti-oxidants when used for distinctive time to re-establish bond strength

Introduction The objective was to evaluate the effect of three antioxidants Sodium thiosulphate Sodium ascorbate and Rosemarinic acid with different application times in reversing the bond strength of dentine compromised...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP321239
  • DOI -
  • Views 78
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Vivek Kapoor, Ruchi Singla, Rajni Kapoor (2017). Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of MTAD, DMSA (Di Mercaptosuccinic acid), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and chlorhexidine against E. faecalis: An ex-vivo study. IP Indian Journal of Conservative and Endodontics, 2(4), 128-132. https://www.europub.co.uk/articles/-A-321239