Antibacterial efficacy of different irrigation methods on Enterococcus faecalis infected root canals in vitro

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2019.04.003

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective

To compare the ultrasonic, Er, Cr: YSGG laser and Er: YAG laser-assisted 1% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution on the bactericidal effect of Enterococcus faecalis (E.faecalis) biofilm on the root canal surface and E.faecalis in different depth from dentinal tubules in the apical region.

Methods

Forty-two single mandibular premolars were used to establish a root canal model of E.faecalis biofilm infection. Two teeth were determined by digital randomization method to establish the model of infection of E.faecalis. The remaining 40 teeth were divided into 5 groups according to the principle of random comparison by digital random method as well as 8 in each group. The groups were: Positive Control: group A: 5.25% NaOCl + 17% EDTA springed, Negative Control: group B: physiologic saline springed, group C: ultrasound + 1% NaOCl, group D: Er: YAG laser + 1% NaOCl, group E: Er, Cr: YSGG + 1% NaOCl. The data from each group were compared using the SPSS 17.0 statistical software for the homogeneity of the experimental data and the normality test to compare the relative sterilization rates between groups and groups.

Results

(1) Comparison between groups: The sterilization rate of each group was compared. Group B (5.74%) <C group (69.70%) <D group (90.14%) <E group (99.25%) , All of which were lower than group A (99.95% of the positive control group) , and the differences between the groups were statistically significant (P<0.05) . (2) Comparison within the group: Compared with the relative sterilization rate of dentin at different depths of 4 mm, the difference of antibacterial rate in different depths of group A and group C was statistically significant (P<0.05) .

Conclusions

Ultrasound, Er: YAG laser, Er, Cr: YSGG laser can enhance the root canal disinfection effect, and the difference between the two laser root canal disinfection effects is not statistically significant, both of which are better than 1% NaOCl ultrasonic washing.

Key words: Root canal irrigants, Laser therapy, Ultrasonic therapy, Laser-activated irrigation, Passive ultrasonic irrigation

Yali Wang, Dan Luo, Ting Shen, Xinna Bai, Minmin Chen, Xiaoli Xie. Antibacterial efficacy of different irrigation methods on Enterococcus faecalis infected root canals in vitro[J]. Chinese Journal of Stomatological Research(Electronic Edition), 2019, 13(04): 204-211.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2019.04.003

https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2019/V13/I04/204

Figures/Tables 7

References 34

[1]	Friedman S, Mor C. The success of endodontic therapy--healing and functionality[J]. J Calif Dent Assoc，2004，32(6):493-503.
[2]	Sedgley CM, Nagel AC, Hall D，et al. Influence of irrigant needle depth in removing bioluminescent bacteria inoculated into instrumented root canals using real time imaging in vitro[J]. Int Endod J，2005，38(2):97-104. DOI：10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00906.x
[3]	刘莉，于鑫，王月秋，等. BioPure MTAD对AH Plus根尖封闭性能的影响[J].上海口腔医学，2009，18(1):86-89.
[4]	Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J，et al. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices[J]. J Endod，2009，35(6):791-804. DOI：10.1016/j.joen.2009.03.010.
[5]	Kojima K, Inamoto K, Nagamatsu K，et al. Success rate of endodontic treatment of teeth with vital and nonvital pulps. A meta-analysis[J]. Oral Surg Or Med Oral Pathol oral Radiol Endod，2004，97(1):95-99. DOI：10.1016/j.tripleo.2003.07.006.
[6]	Lin J, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. A comparative study of biofilm removal with hand，rotary nickel-titanium，and self-adjusting file instrumentation using a novel in vitro biofilm model[J]. J Endod，2013，39(5):658-663. DOI：10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.012.
[7]	王晓仪，朱亚琴.现代根管治疗学[M]. 2版.北京：人民卫生出版社，2006：48-49.
[8]	Liu N, Li X, Liu N，et al. A micro-computed tomography study of the root canal morphology of the mandibular first premolar in a population from southwestern China[J]. Clin Oral Investig，2013，17(4):999-1007. DOI：10.1007/s00784-012-0778-1.
[9]	郭惠杰，岳林.粪肠球菌在根管内定植模式的体外研究[J].北京大学学报（医学版），2009，41(6):699-701.
[10]	de Groot SD, Verhaagen B, Versluis M，et al. Laser-activated irrigation within root canals：cleaning efficacy and flow visualization[J]. Int Endod J，2009，42(12):1077-1083. DOI：10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01634.x.
[11]	Vivan RR, Duque JA, Alcalde MP，et al. Evaluation of Different Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation Protocols on the Removal of Dentinal Debris from Artificial Grooves[J]. Braz Dent J，2016，27(5):568-572. DOI：10.1590/0103-6440201600725.
[12]	Arslan H, Capar ID, Saygili G，et al. Effect of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming on removal of apically placed dentinal debris[J]. Int Endod J，2014，47(11):1072-1077. DOI：10.1111/iej.12251.
[13]	Balicć M, Lucicć R, Mehadžić K，et al. The efficacy of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming and sonic-activated irrigation combined with QMiX solution or sodium hypochlorite against intracanal E.faecalis biofilm[J]. Lasers Med Sci，2016，31(2):335-342. DOI：10.1007/s10103-015-1864-9.
[14]	Shafiei F, Fekrazad R, Kiomarsi N，et al. Bond strength of two resin cements to dentin after disinfection pretreatment：effects of Er，Cr：YSGG laser compared with chemical antibacterial agent[J]. Photomed Laser Surg，2013，31(5):206-211. DOI：10.1089/pho.2012.3400.
[15]	解用江，方玲，毛庆华，等. Er：YAG激光对根管内粪肠球菌影响的体外研究[J].现代口腔医学杂志，2011，25(4):280-282,293.
[16]	樊明文，周学东.牙体牙髓病学[M]. 4版.北京：人民卫生出版社，2014：284.
[18]	López-Jiménez L, Fusté E, Martínez-Garriga B，et al. Effects of photodynamic therapy on Enterococcus faecalis biofilms[J]. Lasers Med Sci，2015，30(5):1519-1526. DOI：10.1007/s10103-015-1749-y.
[19]	Neelakantan P, Cheng CQ, Mohanraj R，et al. Antibiofilm activity of three irrigation protocols activated by ultrasonic，diode laser or Er：YAG laser in vitro[J]. Int Endod J，2015，48(6):602-610. DOI：10.1111/iej.12354.
[20]	Olivi G, DiVito E, Peters O，et al. Disinfection efficacy of photon-induced photoacoustic streaming on root canals infected with Enterococcus faecalis：an ex vivo study[J]. J Am Dent Assoc，2014，145(8):843-848. DOI：10.14219/jada.2014.46.
[21]	Dekova L. Scanning electronmicroscopic investigations of surfaces of tooth supported orthodontic bands[J]. Stomatologiia（Sofiia），1972，54(3):220-226.
[22]	Samiei M, Shahi S, Abdollahi AA，et al. The Antibacterial Efficacy of Photo-Activated Disinfection，Chlorhexidine and Sodium Hypochlorite in Infected Root Canals：An in Vitro Study[J]. Iran Endod J，2016，11(3):179-183. DOI：10.7508/iej.2016.03.006.
[23]	Lim Z, Cheng JL, Lim TW，et al. Light activated disinfection：an alternative endodontic disinfection strategy[J]. Aust Dent J，2009，54(2):108-114. DOI：10.1111/j.1834-7819.2009.01102.x.
[24]	田甜甜. PIPS-Er：YAG激光在不同根尖终末工作宽度时对根管内粪肠球菌杀灭效果的研究[D].西安：第四军医大学，2016.
[25]	Brunson M, Heilborn C, Johnson DJ，et al. Effect of apical preparation size and preparation taper on irrigant volume delivered by using negative pressure irrigation system[J]. J Endod，2010，36(4):721-724. DOI：10.1016/j.joen.2009.11.028.
[26]	Sjögren U, Figdor D, Spångberg L，et al. The antimicrobial effect of calcium hydroxide as a short-term intracanal dressing[J]. Int Endod J，1991，24(3):119-125. DOI：10.1111/j.1365-2591.1991.tb00117.x.
[27]	Regalado Farreras DC, Puente CG, Estrela C. Sodium hypochlorite chemical burn in an endodontist′s eye during canal treatment using operating microscope[J]. J Endod，2014，40(8):1275-1279. DOI：10.1016/j.joen.2014.01.026.
[28]	Kivanç BH, Ulusoy OI, Görgül G. Effects of Er：YAG laser and Nd：YAG laser treatment on the root canal dentin of human teeth：a SEM study[J]. Lasers Med Sci，2008，23(3):247-252. DOI：10.1007/s10103-007-0474-6.
[29]	Ishizaki NT, Matsumoto K, Kimura Y，et al. Thermographical and morphological studies of Er，Cr：YSGG laser irradiation on root canal walls[J]. Photomed Laser Surg，2004，22(4):291-297. DOI：10.1089/pho.2004.22.291.
[30]	Zhu X, Yin X, Chang JW，et al. Comparison of the antibacterial effect and smear layer removal using photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming aided irrigation versus a conventional irrigation in single-rooted canals：an in vitro study[J]. Photomed Laser Surg，2013，31(8):371-377. DOI：10.1089/pho.2013.3515.
[31]	Guidotti R, Merigo E, Fornaini C，et al. Er：YAG 2，940-nm laser fiber in endodontic treatment：a help in removing smear layer[J]. Lasers Med Sci，2014，29(1):69-75. DOI：10.1007/s10103-012-1217-x.
[32]	Sahar-Helft S, Sarp AS, Stabholtz A，et al. Comparison of positive-pressure，passive ultrasonic，and laser-activated irrigations on smear-layer removal from the root canal surface[J]. Photomed Laser Surg，2015，33(3):129-135. DOI：10.1089/pho.2014.3788.
[33]	De Moor RJ, Meire M, Goharkhay K，et al. Efficacy of ultrasonic versus laser-activated irrigation to remove artificially placed dentin debris plugs[J]. J Endod，2010，36(9):1580-1583. DOI：10.1016/j.joen.2010.06.007.
[34]	Helvacıoğlu Kıvanç B, Deniz Arısu H, Yanar NÖ，et al. Apical extrusion of sodium hypochlorite activated with two laser systems and ultrasonics：a spectrophotometric analysis[J]. BMC Oral Health，2015，15:71. DOI：10.1186/s12903-015-0056-0.

组别	样本量	0 ~ 100 μm	100 ~ 200 μm	200 ~ 300 μm
A组	8	4.545 ± 0.197^a	4.737 ± 0.284^a	2.061 ± 0.160^a
B组	8	7.844 ± 0.351^b	5.702 ± 0.567^b	3.039 ± 0.245^b
C组	8	7.315 ± 0.316^c	5.513 ± 0.488^c	2.961 ± 0.232^b
D组	8	6.823 ± 0.465^d	4.741 ± 0.449^a	2.031 ± 0.313^a
E组	8	5.716 ± 0.239^e	3.663 ± 0.308^d	1.785 ± 0.416^c

组别	样本量	0 ~ 100 μm	100 ~ 200 μm	200 ~ 300 μm
A组	8	4.545 ± 0.197^a	4.737 ± 0.284^a	2.061 ± 0.160^a
B组	8	7.844 ± 0.351^b	5.702 ± 0.567^b	3.039 ± 0.245^b
C组	8	7.315 ± 0.316^c	5.513 ± 0.488^c	2.961 ± 0.232^b
D组	8	6.823 ± 0.465^d	4.741 ± 0.449^a	2.031 ± 0.313^a
E组	8	5.716 ± 0.239^e	3.663 ± 0.308^d	1.785 ± 0.416^c

组别	样本量	0 ~ 100 μm	100 ~ 200 μm	200 ~ 300 μm
A组	8	99.95 ± 4.73^a	91.39 ± 4.91^b	86.39 ± 4.04^c
C组	8	68.91 ± 5.65^a	59.15 ± 3.75^b	2.75 ± 3.41^c
D组	8	89.95 ± 3.47^a	90.15 ± 3.82^a	86.65 ± 5.52^b
E组	8	99.21 ± 5.92^a	99.22 ± 5.64^a	95.56 ± 2.89^b

组别	样本量	0 ~ 100 μm	100 ~ 200 μm	200 ~ 300 μm
A组	8	99.95 ± 4.73^a	91.39 ± 4.91^b	86.39 ± 4.04^c
C组	8	68.91 ± 5.65^a	59.15 ± 3.75^b	2.75 ± 3.41^c
D组	8	89.95 ± 3.47^a	90.15 ± 3.82^a	86.65 ± 5.52^b
E组	8	99.21 ± 5.92^a	99.22 ± 5.64^a	95.56 ± 2.89^b

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export