Cargando…

Antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm: A comparison between EDTA, chlorhexidine, cetrimide, MTAD and QMix

We compared the antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities of five root canal irrigants (17% EDTA,2% chlorhexidine,0.2% cetrimide, MTAD, and QMix) in a model of Enterococcus faecalis biofilm formation. Sixty dentin blocks with 3-week E. faecalis biofilm were divided into six equal groups an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Rui, Chen, Min, Lu, Yan, Guo, Xiangjun, Qiao, Feng, Wu, Ligeng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526883/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26245711
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep12944
_version_ 1782384485921193984
author Zhang, Rui
Chen, Min
Lu, Yan
Guo, Xiangjun
Qiao, Feng
Wu, Ligeng
author_facet Zhang, Rui
Chen, Min
Lu, Yan
Guo, Xiangjun
Qiao, Feng
Wu, Ligeng
author_sort Zhang, Rui
collection PubMed
description We compared the antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities of five root canal irrigants (17% EDTA,2% chlorhexidine,0.2% cetrimide, MTAD, and QMix) in a model of Enterococcus faecalis biofilm formation. Sixty dentin blocks with 3-week E. faecalis biofilm were divided into six equal groups and flushed with irrigant for 2 min or left untreated. A blank control group was also established. Antibacterial activities of the irrigants were evaluated by counting colony forming units. To test residual antimicrobial activities, 280 dentin blocks were divided into seven equal groups and flushed with irrigant for 2 min or left untreated and then incubated with E. faecalis suspension for 48 h, or used as a blank. No bacteria were observed in the blank control group. The number of viable E. faecalis was significantly fewer in the irrigant-treated groups compared with the untreated control (P < 0.05). Among the five irrigants, QMix had the strongest antibacterial activity. Residual antimicrobial activities of CHX were significantly higher at 12 h, 24 h and 36 h compared to untreated control (P < 0.05). All five root canal irrigants were effective to some extent against E. faecalis, but QMix and CHX had the strongest, and CHX the longest (up to 36 h), antimicrobial activity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4526883
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45268832015-08-07 Antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm: A comparison between EDTA, chlorhexidine, cetrimide, MTAD and QMix Zhang, Rui Chen, Min Lu, Yan Guo, Xiangjun Qiao, Feng Wu, Ligeng Sci Rep Article We compared the antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities of five root canal irrigants (17% EDTA,2% chlorhexidine,0.2% cetrimide, MTAD, and QMix) in a model of Enterococcus faecalis biofilm formation. Sixty dentin blocks with 3-week E. faecalis biofilm were divided into six equal groups and flushed with irrigant for 2 min or left untreated. A blank control group was also established. Antibacterial activities of the irrigants were evaluated by counting colony forming units. To test residual antimicrobial activities, 280 dentin blocks were divided into seven equal groups and flushed with irrigant for 2 min or left untreated and then incubated with E. faecalis suspension for 48 h, or used as a blank. No bacteria were observed in the blank control group. The number of viable E. faecalis was significantly fewer in the irrigant-treated groups compared with the untreated control (P < 0.05). Among the five irrigants, QMix had the strongest antibacterial activity. Residual antimicrobial activities of CHX were significantly higher at 12 h, 24 h and 36 h compared to untreated control (P < 0.05). All five root canal irrigants were effective to some extent against E. faecalis, but QMix and CHX had the strongest, and CHX the longest (up to 36 h), antimicrobial activity. Nature Publishing Group 2015-08-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4526883/ /pubmed/26245711 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep12944 Text en Copyright © 2015, Macmillan Publishers Limited http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Article
Zhang, Rui
Chen, Min
Lu, Yan
Guo, Xiangjun
Qiao, Feng
Wu, Ligeng
Antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm: A comparison between EDTA, chlorhexidine, cetrimide, MTAD and QMix
title Antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm: A comparison between EDTA, chlorhexidine, cetrimide, MTAD and QMix
title_full Antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm: A comparison between EDTA, chlorhexidine, cetrimide, MTAD and QMix
title_fullStr Antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm: A comparison between EDTA, chlorhexidine, cetrimide, MTAD and QMix
title_full_unstemmed Antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm: A comparison between EDTA, chlorhexidine, cetrimide, MTAD and QMix
title_short Antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm: A comparison between EDTA, chlorhexidine, cetrimide, MTAD and QMix
title_sort antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities against enterococcus faecalis biofilm: a comparison between edta, chlorhexidine, cetrimide, mtad and qmix
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526883/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26245711
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep12944
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangrui antibacterialandresidualantimicrobialactivitiesagainstenterococcusfaecalisbiofilmacomparisonbetweenedtachlorhexidinecetrimidemtadandqmix
AT chenmin antibacterialandresidualantimicrobialactivitiesagainstenterococcusfaecalisbiofilmacomparisonbetweenedtachlorhexidinecetrimidemtadandqmix
AT luyan antibacterialandresidualantimicrobialactivitiesagainstenterococcusfaecalisbiofilmacomparisonbetweenedtachlorhexidinecetrimidemtadandqmix
AT guoxiangjun antibacterialandresidualantimicrobialactivitiesagainstenterococcusfaecalisbiofilmacomparisonbetweenedtachlorhexidinecetrimidemtadandqmix
AT qiaofeng antibacterialandresidualantimicrobialactivitiesagainstenterococcusfaecalisbiofilmacomparisonbetweenedtachlorhexidinecetrimidemtadandqmix
AT wuligeng antibacterialandresidualantimicrobialactivitiesagainstenterococcusfaecalisbiofilmacomparisonbetweenedtachlorhexidinecetrimidemtadandqmix