Antibacterial Efficiency of three Different Irrigation Methods in Infected Roots Infected with Enterococcus Faecalis Biofilm.

Background: The elimination of pathogenic microorganisms is crucial in endodontic treatments, as Enterococcus Faecalis is involved in the majority of endodontic failures. This bacterium is known for its resilience and ability to persist within the root canal system, often leading to treatment complications.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the antibacterial efficiency of three different irrigation methods including passive ultrasonic, XP Endofinisher file, and Laser Diode 810 nm in infected roots with Enterococcus Faecalis (E.faecalis) biofilm.

Materials and method: In this experimental study, 48 anterior single-canal teeth were enrolled. After cutting their crowns, the teeth were cultured with E.faecalis and then randomly divided into four groups. Following preparation through the rotary system up to F4 at the working length, passive ultrasonic irrigation (Ultra X) was used inside the root canal in the first group. In the second group of the study, the XP Endofinisher file was applied to activate the irrigation solution, while in the third group, the Laser Diode 810 nm was used. The fourth group served as the control group and did not utilize any irrigation. The irrigation solution employed across all groups consisted of 1ml of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), followed by a final irrigation with 5ml of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 5ml of 5.25% NaOCl, and 5ml of sterile saline. After canal irrigation and sampling, bacterial colony counting was conducted, and the data were recorded. If the data were normally distributed, a variance test analysis was used; otherwise, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test was applied. The tests were performed at a 5% significance level using SPSS software version 24.

Results: The reduction in the number of bacterial colonies was significantly greater in all three methods compared to the control group. The obtained data revealed that the antibacterial effect of Laser 810 nm was considerably (p< 0.05) higher than the other two groups and reduction in the number of colonies in Ultra X group was remarkably (p< 0.05) greater than the XP Endofinisher file group.

Conclusion: All three mentioned methods were effective in reducing the number of bacteria in endodontic treatments. Notably, the antibacterial efficiency of the Laser Diode 810 nm was significantly greater than that of the other two methods.