TRUShape和Vortex Blue文件系统对生物膜去除的定量分析:微生物学研究。

Shaun Bullard, Mahmoud Mona, Andrea C Pereira, Jessica Kajfasz, Jose A Lemos, Jacqueline Abranches, Shannon M Wallet, Roberta Pileggi
{"title":"TRUShape和Vortex Blue文件系统对生物膜去除的定量分析:微生物学研究。","authors":"Shaun Bullard,&nbsp;Mahmoud Mona,&nbsp;Andrea C Pereira,&nbsp;Jessica Kajfasz,&nbsp;Jose A Lemos,&nbsp;Jacqueline Abranches,&nbsp;Shannon M Wallet,&nbsp;Roberta Pileggi","doi":"10.31083/j.fbs1403018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Mesial roots and isthmuses of mandibular molars are difficult areas to obtain adequate disinfection of root canal walls, and consequently microorganisms can survive treatment. The present study compared, through real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), the effectiveness of TRUShape (TS) (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) and Vortex Blue (VB) (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) in removing <i>Enterococcus faecalis</i> (<i>E. faecalis</i>) from the mesial canals and isthmuses of mandibular molars. Fifty extracted human lower molars were inoculated with <i>E. faecalis</i> OG1RF for 14 days, and then an initial bacterial sample was collected with paper points from mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals and isthmuses. The specimens were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10 teeth; 20 canals each), according to instrumentation system: TS 25/0.06, TS 30/0.06, VB 25/0.06 and VB 30/0.06. The remaining 10 teeth were divided between positive control, inoculated teeth without instrumentation or irrigation, and negative controls, teeth without inoculation. After instrumentation, the final sample was taken using paper points and DNA was isolated. Primers specific for <i>E. faecalis</i> were used for qPCR. The bacterial reduction between pre- and post-instrumentation was calculated. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni's multiple-comparisons tests were for statistical analysis with significance of (<i>p</i> < 0.05). All file systems were able to reduce the load of <i>E. faecalis</i> from the prepared root canals, however, TS size 30 removed significantly more bacteria than size 25. Interestingly, regardless of the size, TS files removed significantly more <i>E. faecalis</i> biofilm (<i>p</i> < 0.05) than did VB files (63.7% vs 50.8% for size 25, and 69.5% vs 56% for size 30). In conclusion, when combined with irrigation, TS file system is more effective than VB in reducing <i>E. faecalis</i> biofilms from mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals and the isthmuses of mandibular molars.</p>","PeriodicalId":73070,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in bioscience (Scholar edition)","volume":"14 3","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative Analysis of Biofilm Removal Following Instrumentation with TRUShape and Vortex Blue File Systems: Microbiological Study.\",\"authors\":\"Shaun Bullard,&nbsp;Mahmoud Mona,&nbsp;Andrea C Pereira,&nbsp;Jessica Kajfasz,&nbsp;Jose A Lemos,&nbsp;Jacqueline Abranches,&nbsp;Shannon M Wallet,&nbsp;Roberta Pileggi\",\"doi\":\"10.31083/j.fbs1403018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Mesial roots and isthmuses of mandibular molars are difficult areas to obtain adequate disinfection of root canal walls, and consequently microorganisms can survive treatment. The present study compared, through real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), the effectiveness of TRUShape (TS) (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) and Vortex Blue (VB) (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) in removing <i>Enterococcus faecalis</i> (<i>E. faecalis</i>) from the mesial canals and isthmuses of mandibular molars. Fifty extracted human lower molars were inoculated with <i>E. faecalis</i> OG1RF for 14 days, and then an initial bacterial sample was collected with paper points from mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals and isthmuses. The specimens were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10 teeth; 20 canals each), according to instrumentation system: TS 25/0.06, TS 30/0.06, VB 25/0.06 and VB 30/0.06. The remaining 10 teeth were divided between positive control, inoculated teeth without instrumentation or irrigation, and negative controls, teeth without inoculation. After instrumentation, the final sample was taken using paper points and DNA was isolated. Primers specific for <i>E. faecalis</i> were used for qPCR. The bacterial reduction between pre- and post-instrumentation was calculated. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni's multiple-comparisons tests were for statistical analysis with significance of (<i>p</i> < 0.05). All file systems were able to reduce the load of <i>E. faecalis</i> from the prepared root canals, however, TS size 30 removed significantly more bacteria than size 25. Interestingly, regardless of the size, TS files removed significantly more <i>E. faecalis</i> biofilm (<i>p</i> < 0.05) than did VB files (63.7% vs 50.8% for size 25, and 69.5% vs 56% for size 30). In conclusion, when combined with irrigation, TS file system is more effective than VB in reducing <i>E. faecalis</i> biofilms from mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals and the isthmuses of mandibular molars.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in bioscience (Scholar edition)\",\"volume\":\"14 3\",\"pages\":\"18\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in bioscience (Scholar edition)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31083/j.fbs1403018\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in bioscience (Scholar edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31083/j.fbs1403018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

下颌磨牙的近中根和峡部是根管壁难以获得充分消毒的区域,因此微生物可以在处理后存活。本研究通过实时聚合酶链反应(qPCR)比较了TRUShape (TS) (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK)和Vortex Blue (VB) (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK)去除下颌磨牙近中管和峡部粪肠球菌(E. faecalis)的效果。将50颗提取的人下磨牙接种粪肠球菌OG1RF 14 d,然后从中颊管、中舌管和峡部的纸点处采集初始细菌样本。将标本随机分为4组(n = 10颗牙;各20根),根据仪器系统:TS 25/0.06, TS 30/0.06, VB 25/0.06和VB 30/0.06。其余10颗牙分为阳性对照组和阴性对照组,阳性对照组为接种牙,不接种器械或冲洗。仪器检测后,用纸点采集最终样本,并分离DNA。采用粪肠杆菌特异性引物进行qPCR。计算仪器前和仪器后的细菌减少量。采用Bonferroni多重比较检验进行单因素方差分析(ANOVA),差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。所有的文件系统都能减少根管中粪肠杆菌的负荷,然而,30大小的文件系统比25大小的文件系统去除的细菌明显更多。有趣的是,无论大小如何,TS文件比VB文件(63.7% vs 50.8%, 69.5% vs 56%)清除了更多的粪肠球菌生物膜(p < 0.05)。综上所述,TS文件系统与灌洗相结合,对减少下颌磨牙中颊、中舌管及峡部的粪肠球菌生物膜的效果优于VB。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Quantitative Analysis of Biofilm Removal Following Instrumentation with TRUShape and Vortex Blue File Systems: Microbiological Study.

Mesial roots and isthmuses of mandibular molars are difficult areas to obtain adequate disinfection of root canal walls, and consequently microorganisms can survive treatment. The present study compared, through real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), the effectiveness of TRUShape (TS) (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) and Vortex Blue (VB) (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) in removing Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) from the mesial canals and isthmuses of mandibular molars. Fifty extracted human lower molars were inoculated with E. faecalis OG1RF for 14 days, and then an initial bacterial sample was collected with paper points from mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals and isthmuses. The specimens were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10 teeth; 20 canals each), according to instrumentation system: TS 25/0.06, TS 30/0.06, VB 25/0.06 and VB 30/0.06. The remaining 10 teeth were divided between positive control, inoculated teeth without instrumentation or irrigation, and negative controls, teeth without inoculation. After instrumentation, the final sample was taken using paper points and DNA was isolated. Primers specific for E. faecalis were used for qPCR. The bacterial reduction between pre- and post-instrumentation was calculated. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni's multiple-comparisons tests were for statistical analysis with significance of (p < 0.05). All file systems were able to reduce the load of E. faecalis from the prepared root canals, however, TS size 30 removed significantly more bacteria than size 25. Interestingly, regardless of the size, TS files removed significantly more E. faecalis biofilm (p < 0.05) than did VB files (63.7% vs 50.8% for size 25, and 69.5% vs 56% for size 30). In conclusion, when combined with irrigation, TS file system is more effective than VB in reducing E. faecalis biofilms from mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals and the isthmuses of mandibular molars.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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