A microbial assessment of instrumentation and noninstrumentation laser disinfection technique: An in vivo study

Q3 Dentistry
Anaida Clara Alex, I. Geeta, R. V. Chandra, B. Arvind
{"title":"A microbial assessment of instrumentation and noninstrumentation laser disinfection technique: An in vivo study","authors":"Anaida Clara Alex, I. Geeta, R. V. Chandra, B. Arvind","doi":"10.4103/endo.endo_160_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n The present study compares the reduction in microbial count of instrumentation versus noninstrumentation laser disinfection technique.\n \n \n \n Thirty patients with periapical lesions ranging 3–5 mm in single-rooted teeth were selected for the study. The groups were divided into two main groups: Group 1 – instrumentation technique and Group 2 – noninstrumentation technique subjected to laser disinfection. Group 2 was again subdivided into two groups: Group 2A – only laser disinfection and Group 2B – laser disinfection and medicament. The groups were analyzed for the reduction in microbial count. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare mean differences in colony-forming unit (CFU) counts. Post operative mean CFU between the three groups were compared using Dunn’s Post Hoc analysis. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05.\n \n \n \n Significant differences were noted in mean CFU counts between Group 1 and Groups 2A and 2B (P = 0.006 and P = 0.001, respectively). Among Groups 2A and 2B, the reduction in the microbial count of Group 2B is better than 2A although not significant.\n \n \n \n The use of Er:YAG laser allows for effective use in disinfection due to its favorable properties such as antimicrobial effect, photoacoustic streaming, vapor bubbles effect, and lack of negative thermal impact on the periodontium.\n \n \n \n Significant shifts were observed in both the groups, but the impact of the shift was greater in the laser-assisted groups. Noninstrumentation laser disinfection technique shows promising results when compared to conventional techniques.\n","PeriodicalId":11607,"journal":{"name":"Endodontology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endodontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/endo.endo_160_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The present study compares the reduction in microbial count of instrumentation versus noninstrumentation laser disinfection technique. Thirty patients with periapical lesions ranging 3–5 mm in single-rooted teeth were selected for the study. The groups were divided into two main groups: Group 1 – instrumentation technique and Group 2 – noninstrumentation technique subjected to laser disinfection. Group 2 was again subdivided into two groups: Group 2A – only laser disinfection and Group 2B – laser disinfection and medicament. The groups were analyzed for the reduction in microbial count. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare mean differences in colony-forming unit (CFU) counts. Post operative mean CFU between the three groups were compared using Dunn’s Post Hoc analysis. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05. Significant differences were noted in mean CFU counts between Group 1 and Groups 2A and 2B (P = 0.006 and P = 0.001, respectively). Among Groups 2A and 2B, the reduction in the microbial count of Group 2B is better than 2A although not significant. The use of Er:YAG laser allows for effective use in disinfection due to its favorable properties such as antimicrobial effect, photoacoustic streaming, vapor bubbles effect, and lack of negative thermal impact on the periodontium. Significant shifts were observed in both the groups, but the impact of the shift was greater in the laser-assisted groups. Noninstrumentation laser disinfection technique shows promising results when compared to conventional techniques.
器械和非器械激光消毒技术的微生物评估:体内研究
本研究比较了器械与非器械激光消毒技术在减少微生物数量方面的差异。 研究选取了 30 名单根牙根尖周炎病变范围为 3-5 毫米的患者。研究组主要分为两组:第一组--器械消毒技术,第二组--非器械消毒技术和激光消毒。第 2 组又分为两组:2A 组--仅激光消毒,2B 组--激光消毒和药物。对各组的微生物数量减少情况进行分析。Kruskal-Wallis 检验用于比较菌落形成单位(CFU)计数的平均差异。使用 Dunn's Post Hoc 分析比较三组术后平均 CFU。显著性水平设定为 P <0.05。 第 1 组与第 2A 组和第 2B 组的平均 CFU 计数存在显著差异(分别为 P = 0.006 和 P = 0.001)。在 2A 组和 2B 组中,2B 组的微生物数量减少情况好于 2A 组,但差异不显著。 由于 Er:YAG 激光具有抗菌作用、光声流、气泡效应和对牙周无负面热影响等有利特性,因此可有效用于消毒。 在两组中都观察到了明显的变化,但激光辅助组的变化影响更大。与传统技术相比,非仪器激光消毒技术显示出良好的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Endodontology
Endodontology Medicine-Anatomy
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
28 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信