Cargando…

The in vitro antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers (GuttaFlow2, AH Plus, ProRoot MTA and RealSeal) against E. feacalis, E.coli and C.albicans. METHODS: The antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers were assessed by both agar dif...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Yuting, Li, Xiaoshuang, Mandal, Preeti, Wu, Yan, Liu, Lin, Gui, Huihua, Liu, Jiarong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6582474/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31215426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0817-2
_version_ 1783428327876329472
author Huang, Yuting
Li, Xiaoshuang
Mandal, Preeti
Wu, Yan
Liu, Lin
Gui, Huihua
Liu, Jiarong
author_facet Huang, Yuting
Li, Xiaoshuang
Mandal, Preeti
Wu, Yan
Liu, Lin
Gui, Huihua
Liu, Jiarong
author_sort Huang, Yuting
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers (GuttaFlow2, AH Plus, ProRoot MTA and RealSeal) against E. feacalis, E.coli and C.albicans. METHODS: The antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers were assessed by both agar diffusion test (ADT) and direct contact test (DCT) in this study. In ADT, the results were reported as the diameter of the growth inhibition zone. Both fresh and 1-day-setting sealers were measured. In DCT, microorganisms in suspension were exposed to the sealers for 10, 30 and 60 min and the survival of microorganisms were determined after exposure at different time points(after mixing, 1 and 7 days). The number of colony-forming unit (CFU) was counted. The results were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey tests. RESULTS: Both ADT and DCT results showed that Guttaflow2 presented no effect against any tested microorganisms. In ADT, fresh RealSeal had the largest inhibition zone against all tested microbes, followed by AH Plus and ProRoot MTA. ProRoot MTA demonstrated inhibition zones against all the three test microbes after setting for 1 day, while the other three sealers showed no inhibition activity. In DCT, fresh AH Plus had the strongest antimicrobial effects against all the three tested microorganisms for every contact times, while its antimicrobial activity diminished significantly with time. Fresh RealSeal and ProRoot MTA also showed strong antimicrobial effect and still showed antimicrobial effect after 1-day-setting. The antibacterial effects of RealSeal against E. faecalis and antifungal effect of ProRoot MTA were observed after 7 days of setting. CONCLUSIONS: GuttaFlow2 had no antimicrobial activity. Freshly mixed RealSeal and AH Plus demonstrated strong antimicrobial effects. RealSeal showed antimicrobial effects after setting in DCT. ProRoot MTA showed high antimicrobial activity and exhibited anti-inflammation potentials after setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6582474
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65824742019-06-26 The in vitro antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers Huang, Yuting Li, Xiaoshuang Mandal, Preeti Wu, Yan Liu, Lin Gui, Huihua Liu, Jiarong BMC Oral Health Research Article BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers (GuttaFlow2, AH Plus, ProRoot MTA and RealSeal) against E. feacalis, E.coli and C.albicans. METHODS: The antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers were assessed by both agar diffusion test (ADT) and direct contact test (DCT) in this study. In ADT, the results were reported as the diameter of the growth inhibition zone. Both fresh and 1-day-setting sealers were measured. In DCT, microorganisms in suspension were exposed to the sealers for 10, 30 and 60 min and the survival of microorganisms were determined after exposure at different time points(after mixing, 1 and 7 days). The number of colony-forming unit (CFU) was counted. The results were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey tests. RESULTS: Both ADT and DCT results showed that Guttaflow2 presented no effect against any tested microorganisms. In ADT, fresh RealSeal had the largest inhibition zone against all tested microbes, followed by AH Plus and ProRoot MTA. ProRoot MTA demonstrated inhibition zones against all the three test microbes after setting for 1 day, while the other three sealers showed no inhibition activity. In DCT, fresh AH Plus had the strongest antimicrobial effects against all the three tested microorganisms for every contact times, while its antimicrobial activity diminished significantly with time. Fresh RealSeal and ProRoot MTA also showed strong antimicrobial effect and still showed antimicrobial effect after 1-day-setting. The antibacterial effects of RealSeal against E. faecalis and antifungal effect of ProRoot MTA were observed after 7 days of setting. CONCLUSIONS: GuttaFlow2 had no antimicrobial activity. Freshly mixed RealSeal and AH Plus demonstrated strong antimicrobial effects. RealSeal showed antimicrobial effects after setting in DCT. ProRoot MTA showed high antimicrobial activity and exhibited anti-inflammation potentials after setting. BioMed Central 2019-06-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6582474/ /pubmed/31215426 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0817-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Huang, Yuting
Li, Xiaoshuang
Mandal, Preeti
Wu, Yan
Liu, Lin
Gui, Huihua
Liu, Jiarong
The in vitro antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers
title The in vitro antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers
title_full The in vitro antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers
title_fullStr The in vitro antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers
title_full_unstemmed The in vitro antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers
title_short The in vitro antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers
title_sort in vitro antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6582474/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31215426
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0817-2
work_keys_str_mv AT huangyuting theinvitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers
AT lixiaoshuang theinvitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers
AT mandalpreeti theinvitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers
AT wuyan theinvitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers
AT liulin theinvitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers
AT guihuihua theinvitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers
AT liujiarong theinvitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers
AT huangyuting invitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers
AT lixiaoshuang invitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers
AT mandalpreeti invitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers
AT wuyan invitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers
AT liulin invitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers
AT guihuihua invitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers
AT liujiarong invitroantimicrobialactivitiesoffourendodonticsealers