Bactericidal efficacy of endodontic irrigation products Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25%, Chlorhexidine 0.12%, Qmix and MTAD : an in vitro test.

Andres Limas, Adolfo Contreras Rengifo, Paola Andrea Escobar Villegas, Sandra Amaya Sánchez, Daniel Felipe Vásquez Giraldo
{"title":"Bactericidal efficacy of endodontic irrigation products Sodium Hypochlorite 5.25%, Chlorhexidine 0.12%, Qmix and MTAD : an in vitro test.","authors":"Andres Limas, Adolfo Contreras Rengifo, Paola Andrea Escobar Villegas, Sandra Amaya Sánchez, Daniel Felipe Vásquez Giraldo","doi":"10.16925/2357-4607.2021.02.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract\nEndodontic treatment includes mechanical therapy combined with irrigation and disinfection techniques to remove vital pulp, non-vital pulp, and infected or necrotic pulp aiming to reduce intracanal pathogens to a level compatible with endodontic health.  Infections in the root canal system are polymicrobial in which diverse microorganisms aggregated within extracellular polysaccharide matrix biofilms, therefore endodontic irrigation and mechanical debridement must need to disrupt this established microbial community and its products. Brand new clinical irrigation systems are promoted by their properties against diverse pathogenic endodontic microbiota, but their antimicrobial effectiveness is a matter of discussion. This study aimed to determine the anti-microbial properties of four common endodontic irrigation products against five ATCC strains in an in vitro test. Objective: Determine the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) and the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 5.25% NaOClâ, 0.12% Chlorhexidineâ, MTADâ and Qmixâ against reference strains including Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans – ATCC 29522, Porphyromonas gingivalis – ATCC 33277, Candida albicans – ATCC 44858,  Enteroccocus faecalis - ATCC 29212 and Enterobacter cloacae 13047. Methods and Materials: A microdilution broth test was carried out in triplicate to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration and the minimum bactericidal concentration of endodontic irrigation against specific microbial strains. Microbial viability was determined using resazurin, and microbial subcultures according to the adapted Norms of Clinical and Laboratory Standards (NCCL) - 2015. Results: C. albicans, E. faecalis and E. cloacae were the microorganisms more resistant against the microbicide action of Qmixâ and C. albicans, and E. faecalis the more resistant microorganisms against BioPure MTADâ. The BioPure MTADâ had a MIC of (1:8) against E. faecalis and C. albicans and the more susceptible bacteria were A. actinomycetemcomitans, P. gingivalis and E. cloacae, with MIC (1:8192; 1: 2048; and 1: 1024, respectively). The most resistant against QMIXâ (MIC) were E. faecalis, (1:4), followed by E. cloacae and C. albicans (1:8), and the more susceptible were P. gingivalis (1:1024), and A. actinomycetemcomitans (1:512), respectively. On the other hand, the less susceptible to Chlorhexidineâ was P. gingivalis (MIC, 75 μg/mL), followed by A. actinomycetemcomitans (MIC, 38 μg /mL), while the more susceptible were C. albicans,  MIC 19 μg /mL, E. cloacae MIC 9 μg/ mL and E. faecalis MIC 4.7 μg /mL. For NaOCLâ, C. albicans (1,563 μg /mL) was the more susceptible, followed by E. cloacae, P. gingivalis and E. faecalis (781 μg/mL) and the less susceptible was A. actinomycetemcomitans (391 μg/mL). Conclusions: C. albicans, E. cloacae and E. faecalis were the more resistant strains against the endodontic irrigation products tested. The (CIM) of BioPure MTADâ performed slightly better than QMixâ. Chlorhexidineâ (0.12%) was more effective than NaOCLâ (5.25%) in inhibiting most microbial strains used. However, P. gingivalis was the less susceptible to Chlorhexidineâ, requiring 75 μg/mL for CIM. Overall, Chlorhexidineâ showed the best antimicrobial property as endodontic irrigation product in this in vitro test, therefore, this product efficacy might be proved against the complexity of biofilms in other vitro test and also at the clinical setting.","PeriodicalId":30824,"journal":{"name":"Revista Nacional de Odontologia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Nacional de Odontologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16925/2357-4607.2021.02.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Endodontic treatment includes mechanical therapy combined with irrigation and disinfection techniques to remove vital pulp, non-vital pulp, and infected or necrotic pulp aiming to reduce intracanal pathogens to a level compatible with endodontic health.  Infections in the root canal system are polymicrobial in which diverse microorganisms aggregated within extracellular polysaccharide matrix biofilms, therefore endodontic irrigation and mechanical debridement must need to disrupt this established microbial community and its products. Brand new clinical irrigation systems are promoted by their properties against diverse pathogenic endodontic microbiota, but their antimicrobial effectiveness is a matter of discussion. This study aimed to determine the anti-microbial properties of four common endodontic irrigation products against five ATCC strains in an in vitro test. Objective: Determine the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) and the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 5.25% NaOClâ, 0.12% Chlorhexidineâ, MTADâ and Qmixâ against reference strains including Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans – ATCC 29522, Porphyromonas gingivalis – ATCC 33277, Candida albicans – ATCC 44858,  Enteroccocus faecalis - ATCC 29212 and Enterobacter cloacae 13047. Methods and Materials: A microdilution broth test was carried out in triplicate to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration and the minimum bactericidal concentration of endodontic irrigation against specific microbial strains. Microbial viability was determined using resazurin, and microbial subcultures according to the adapted Norms of Clinical and Laboratory Standards (NCCL) - 2015. Results: C. albicans, E. faecalis and E. cloacae were the microorganisms more resistant against the microbicide action of Qmixâ and C. albicans, and E. faecalis the more resistant microorganisms against BioPure MTADâ. The BioPure MTADâ had a MIC of (1:8) against E. faecalis and C. albicans and the more susceptible bacteria were A. actinomycetemcomitans, P. gingivalis and E. cloacae, with MIC (1:8192; 1: 2048; and 1: 1024, respectively). The most resistant against QMIXâ (MIC) were E. faecalis, (1:4), followed by E. cloacae and C. albicans (1:8), and the more susceptible were P. gingivalis (1:1024), and A. actinomycetemcomitans (1:512), respectively. On the other hand, the less susceptible to Chlorhexidineâ was P. gingivalis (MIC, 75 μg/mL), followed by A. actinomycetemcomitans (MIC, 38 μg /mL), while the more susceptible were C. albicans,  MIC 19 μg /mL, E. cloacae MIC 9 μg/ mL and E. faecalis MIC 4.7 μg /mL. For NaOCLâ, C. albicans (1,563 μg /mL) was the more susceptible, followed by E. cloacae, P. gingivalis and E. faecalis (781 μg/mL) and the less susceptible was A. actinomycetemcomitans (391 μg/mL). Conclusions: C. albicans, E. cloacae and E. faecalis were the more resistant strains against the endodontic irrigation products tested. The (CIM) of BioPure MTADâ performed slightly better than QMixâ. Chlorhexidineâ (0.12%) was more effective than NaOCLâ (5.25%) in inhibiting most microbial strains used. However, P. gingivalis was the less susceptible to Chlorhexidineâ, requiring 75 μg/mL for CIM. Overall, Chlorhexidineâ showed the best antimicrobial property as endodontic irrigation product in this in vitro test, therefore, this product efficacy might be proved against the complexity of biofilms in other vitro test and also at the clinical setting.
根管冲洗产品次氯酸钠5.25%、氯己定0.12%、Qmix的杀菌效果 和MTAD : 体外试验。
牙髓治疗包括机械治疗,结合冲洗和消毒技术,去除重要牙髓、非重要牙髓和感染或坏死牙髓,旨在将管内病原体减少到与牙髓健康兼容的水平。根管系统中的感染是多种微生物的,其中不同的微生物聚集在细胞外多糖基质生物膜内,因此必须进行牙髓冲洗和机械清创术来破坏这种已建立的微生物群落及其产物。全新的临床灌溉系统因其对抗多种病原根管微生物群的特性而得到推广,但其抗菌效果仍有待讨论。本研究旨在通过体外试验确定四种常见牙髓冲洗产品对五种ATCC菌株的抗菌性能。目的:测定5.25%NaOClâ、0.12%氯己定、MTADâ和Qmixâ对共放线聚合杆菌ATCC 29522、牙龈卟啉单胞菌ATCC 33277、白色念珠菌ATCC 44858等参考菌株的最低杀菌浓度(MBC)和最低抑菌浓度(MIC),粪肠球菌-ATCC 29212和阴沟肠杆菌13047。方法和材料:微量稀释肉汤试验一式三份,以确定根管冲洗对特定微生物菌株的最小抑制浓度和最小杀菌浓度。使用雷沙苏林测定微生物活力,并根据改编的《临床和实验室标准规范》(NCCL)-2015进行微生物亚培养。结果:白色念珠菌、粪大肠杆菌和阴沟肠杆菌是对Qmixâ和白色念珠菌的杀微生物作用更具抗性的微生物,粪大肠杆菌是对BioPure MTADâ更有抗性的微生物。BioPure MTADâ对粪肠球菌和白色念珠菌的MIC为(1:8),更易感的细菌是共放线菌、牙龈卟啉单胞菌和泄殖腔大肠杆菌,MIC分别为(1:8192;1:2048;和1:1024)。对QMIXâ(MIC)最具耐药性的是粪大肠杆菌(1:4),其次是阴沟道大肠杆菌和白色念珠菌(1:8),更易感的分别是牙龈卟啉单胞菌(1:1024)和共放线菌(1:512)。另一方面,对氯己定不太敏感的是牙龈卟啉单胞菌(MIC,75μg/mL),其次是共放线菌(MIC,38μg/mL。对于NaOCLâ,白色念珠菌(1563μg/mL)更易感,其次是阴沟肠杆菌、牙龈卟啉单胞菌和粪便大肠杆菌(781μg/mL。结论:白色念珠菌、阴沟肠杆菌和粪肠球菌是对根管冲洗产品更具耐药性的菌株。BioPure MTADâ的(CIM)表现略好于QMixâ。氯己定(0.12%)在抑制大多数使用的微生物菌株方面比NaOCL(5.25%)更有效。然而,牙龈卟啉单胞菌对氯己定的敏感性较低,CIM需要75μg/mL。总的来说,氯己定作为牙髓冲洗产品在体外试验中表现出了最好的抗菌性能,因此,该产品的疗效可能会在其他体外试验和临床环境中被证明可以对抗生物膜的复杂性。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 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