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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |