Cargando…

Comparison of Antibacterial Activities of ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA, and RetroMTA Against Three Anaerobic Endodontic Bacteria

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the antibacterial activities of OrthoMTA, RetroMTA, and ProRoot MTA against Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), and Prevotella intermedia (Pi). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each material was mixed on a glass slab using a spatula and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Khedmat, Sedigheh, Aminipor, Mohammad, Pourhajibagher, Maryam, Kharazifar, Mohammad Javad, Bahador, Abbas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6397732/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30833975
_version_ 1783399452080340992
author Khedmat, Sedigheh
Aminipor, Mohammad
Pourhajibagher, Maryam
Kharazifar, Mohammad Javad
Bahador, Abbas
author_facet Khedmat, Sedigheh
Aminipor, Mohammad
Pourhajibagher, Maryam
Kharazifar, Mohammad Javad
Bahador, Abbas
author_sort Khedmat, Sedigheh
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the antibacterial activities of OrthoMTA, RetroMTA, and ProRoot MTA against Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), and Prevotella intermedia (Pi). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each material was mixed on a glass slab using a spatula and was placed in columns containing the filter membrane of the modified membrane-enclosed immersion test (MEIT) system. The materials were sterilized after setting. The columns containing the sterilized test materials were placed in microcentrifuge tubes containing 500 μl of bacterial suspension. The systems were then incubated at 37°C under anaerobic conditions. After 72 hours, the bacterial growth and concentration (colony-forming unit (CFU)/ml) were assessed. The results were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post-hoc test in SPSS 22 software. In all analyses, the differences were considered significant at P<0.05. RESULTS: OrthoMTA had the highest antibacterial activity against Pi. The mean number of CFU/ml of Fn in the presence of ProRoot MTA and RetroMTA was significantly lower than that in positive controls. There were significant differences between the antibacterial activities of ProRoot MTA and OrthoMTA against Pg compared to positive controls. CONCLUSIONS: ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA, and RetroMTA had similar antibacterial activities against the three evaluated anaerobic endodontic bacteria, except RetroMTA against Pg.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6397732
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Tehran University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63977322019-03-04 Comparison of Antibacterial Activities of ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA, and RetroMTA Against Three Anaerobic Endodontic Bacteria Khedmat, Sedigheh Aminipor, Mohammad Pourhajibagher, Maryam Kharazifar, Mohammad Javad Bahador, Abbas J Dent (Tehran) Original Article OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the antibacterial activities of OrthoMTA, RetroMTA, and ProRoot MTA against Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), and Prevotella intermedia (Pi). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Each material was mixed on a glass slab using a spatula and was placed in columns containing the filter membrane of the modified membrane-enclosed immersion test (MEIT) system. The materials were sterilized after setting. The columns containing the sterilized test materials were placed in microcentrifuge tubes containing 500 μl of bacterial suspension. The systems were then incubated at 37°C under anaerobic conditions. After 72 hours, the bacterial growth and concentration (colony-forming unit (CFU)/ml) were assessed. The results were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post-hoc test in SPSS 22 software. In all analyses, the differences were considered significant at P<0.05. RESULTS: OrthoMTA had the highest antibacterial activity against Pi. The mean number of CFU/ml of Fn in the presence of ProRoot MTA and RetroMTA was significantly lower than that in positive controls. There were significant differences between the antibacterial activities of ProRoot MTA and OrthoMTA against Pg compared to positive controls. CONCLUSIONS: ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA, and RetroMTA had similar antibacterial activities against the three evaluated anaerobic endodontic bacteria, except RetroMTA against Pg. Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2018-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6397732/ /pubmed/30833975 Text en Copyright© Dental Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Khedmat, Sedigheh
Aminipor, Mohammad
Pourhajibagher, Maryam
Kharazifar, Mohammad Javad
Bahador, Abbas
Comparison of Antibacterial Activities of ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA, and RetroMTA Against Three Anaerobic Endodontic Bacteria
title Comparison of Antibacterial Activities of ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA, and RetroMTA Against Three Anaerobic Endodontic Bacteria
title_full Comparison of Antibacterial Activities of ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA, and RetroMTA Against Three Anaerobic Endodontic Bacteria
title_fullStr Comparison of Antibacterial Activities of ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA, and RetroMTA Against Three Anaerobic Endodontic Bacteria
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Antibacterial Activities of ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA, and RetroMTA Against Three Anaerobic Endodontic Bacteria
title_short Comparison of Antibacterial Activities of ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA, and RetroMTA Against Three Anaerobic Endodontic Bacteria
title_sort comparison of antibacterial activities of proroot mta, orthomta, and retromta against three anaerobic endodontic bacteria
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6397732/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30833975
work_keys_str_mv AT khedmatsedigheh comparisonofantibacterialactivitiesofprorootmtaorthomtaandretromtaagainstthreeanaerobicendodonticbacteria
AT aminipormohammad comparisonofantibacterialactivitiesofprorootmtaorthomtaandretromtaagainstthreeanaerobicendodonticbacteria
AT pourhajibaghermaryam comparisonofantibacterialactivitiesofprorootmtaorthomtaandretromtaagainstthreeanaerobicendodonticbacteria
AT kharazifarmohammadjavad comparisonofantibacterialactivitiesofprorootmtaorthomtaandretromtaagainstthreeanaerobicendodonticbacteria
AT bahadorabbas comparisonofantibacterialactivitiesofprorootmtaorthomtaandretromtaagainstthreeanaerobicendodonticbacteria