Cargando…

Antibacterial Effect of Red Laser Therapy on Enterococcus faecalis Using Different Photosensitizers: An In Vitro Study

OBJECTIVE: To assess the antibacterial effect of red laser using different photosensitizers such as methylene blue and malachite green on monoradicular premolars contaminated with E. faecalis ATCC 29212. METHODS: This was an in vitro experimental study. Monoradicular premolars (44, 45, 34, and 35) w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Torres, Franz, Mallma, Adrian, Munayco, Americo, Sotomayor, Oscar, Mauricio, Franco, Mayta-Tovalino, Frank
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8853808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35186086
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/7408554
_version_ 1784653306820296704
author Torres, Franz
Mallma, Adrian
Munayco, Americo
Sotomayor, Oscar
Mauricio, Franco
Mayta-Tovalino, Frank
author_facet Torres, Franz
Mallma, Adrian
Munayco, Americo
Sotomayor, Oscar
Mauricio, Franco
Mayta-Tovalino, Frank
author_sort Torres, Franz
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To assess the antibacterial effect of red laser using different photosensitizers such as methylene blue and malachite green on monoradicular premolars contaminated with E. faecalis ATCC 29212. METHODS: This was an in vitro experimental study. Monoradicular premolars (44, 45, 34, and 35) were used, which were treated with ProTaper Next. After instrument change, irrigation, disinfection, and aspiration were performed with 2 ml of 4% NaOCl with a NaviTip 30°G needle (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA). Group 1: RL + MB (red laser associated with methylene blue photosensitizer), group 2: RL + MG (red laser associated with malachite green photosensitizer), and group 3: control (no treatment). The E. faecalis strain was cultured on trypticase soy agar (TSB) (Difco, Detroit, MI, USA) and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. After the incubation period, colony-forming units (CFU/ml) of each group were counted using the plate count method. The ANOVA test was used with a significance level of p < 0.05. RESULTS: Group 1 had the lowest antibacterial contamination as it averaged only 530 ± 581.3 CFU/ml, while group 2 had the highest contamination with an average of 1990 ± 542.5 CFU/ml. Comparison revealed that there were statistically significant differences between the RL + MB and RL + MG groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Group 1 had the best antimicrobial potential because it presented the lowest contamination in CFU/ml of E. faecalis compared to group 2 and group 3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8853808
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88538082022-02-18 Antibacterial Effect of Red Laser Therapy on Enterococcus faecalis Using Different Photosensitizers: An In Vitro Study Torres, Franz Mallma, Adrian Munayco, Americo Sotomayor, Oscar Mauricio, Franco Mayta-Tovalino, Frank Int J Dent Research Article OBJECTIVE: To assess the antibacterial effect of red laser using different photosensitizers such as methylene blue and malachite green on monoradicular premolars contaminated with E. faecalis ATCC 29212. METHODS: This was an in vitro experimental study. Monoradicular premolars (44, 45, 34, and 35) were used, which were treated with ProTaper Next. After instrument change, irrigation, disinfection, and aspiration were performed with 2 ml of 4% NaOCl with a NaviTip 30°G needle (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA). Group 1: RL + MB (red laser associated with methylene blue photosensitizer), group 2: RL + MG (red laser associated with malachite green photosensitizer), and group 3: control (no treatment). The E. faecalis strain was cultured on trypticase soy agar (TSB) (Difco, Detroit, MI, USA) and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. After the incubation period, colony-forming units (CFU/ml) of each group were counted using the plate count method. The ANOVA test was used with a significance level of p < 0.05. RESULTS: Group 1 had the lowest antibacterial contamination as it averaged only 530 ± 581.3 CFU/ml, while group 2 had the highest contamination with an average of 1990 ± 542.5 CFU/ml. Comparison revealed that there were statistically significant differences between the RL + MB and RL + MG groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Group 1 had the best antimicrobial potential because it presented the lowest contamination in CFU/ml of E. faecalis compared to group 2 and group 3. Hindawi 2022-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8853808/ /pubmed/35186086 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/7408554 Text en Copyright © 2022 Franz Torres et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Torres, Franz
Mallma, Adrian
Munayco, Americo
Sotomayor, Oscar
Mauricio, Franco
Mayta-Tovalino, Frank
Antibacterial Effect of Red Laser Therapy on Enterococcus faecalis Using Different Photosensitizers: An In Vitro Study
title Antibacterial Effect of Red Laser Therapy on Enterococcus faecalis Using Different Photosensitizers: An In Vitro Study
title_full Antibacterial Effect of Red Laser Therapy on Enterococcus faecalis Using Different Photosensitizers: An In Vitro Study
title_fullStr Antibacterial Effect of Red Laser Therapy on Enterococcus faecalis Using Different Photosensitizers: An In Vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed Antibacterial Effect of Red Laser Therapy on Enterococcus faecalis Using Different Photosensitizers: An In Vitro Study
title_short Antibacterial Effect of Red Laser Therapy on Enterococcus faecalis Using Different Photosensitizers: An In Vitro Study
title_sort antibacterial effect of red laser therapy on enterococcus faecalis using different photosensitizers: an in vitro study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8853808/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35186086
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/7408554
work_keys_str_mv AT torresfranz antibacterialeffectofredlasertherapyonenterococcusfaecalisusingdifferentphotosensitizersaninvitrostudy
AT mallmaadrian antibacterialeffectofredlasertherapyonenterococcusfaecalisusingdifferentphotosensitizersaninvitrostudy
AT munaycoamerico antibacterialeffectofredlasertherapyonenterococcusfaecalisusingdifferentphotosensitizersaninvitrostudy
AT sotomayoroscar antibacterialeffectofredlasertherapyonenterococcusfaecalisusingdifferentphotosensitizersaninvitrostudy
AT mauriciofranco antibacterialeffectofredlasertherapyonenterococcusfaecalisusingdifferentphotosensitizersaninvitrostudy
AT maytatovalinofrank antibacterialeffectofredlasertherapyonenterococcusfaecalisusingdifferentphotosensitizersaninvitrostudy