Aim. To evaluate the antibacterial activity of four endodontic sealers on Enterococcus faecalis by a direct contact test. Material and Methods. Enterococcus faecalis was used as a test organism. Direct contact test which is based on measuring the effect of close contact between test bacteria and tested material on the kinetics of bacterial growth was performed to overcome the disadvantages of agar diffusion test. The sealers tested were zinc oxide eugenol-based sealer, glass-ionomer-based sealer, polydimethyl-siloxane-based sealer, and urethane dimethacrylate resin-based sealer. Data was collected by recording the optical density with the help of a spectrophotometer. Results. The sealers exhibited different inhibitory effects. The results obtained were subjected to statistical analysis by Kruskal Wallis analysis of variance and Dunn's multiple comparison test. Group comparison showed very highly significant difference between the groups. Conclusion. Zinc oxide eugenol-based sealer was the most effective and urethane dimethacrylate resin-based sealer was the least effective against Enterococcus faecalis, whereas glass-ionomer-based and polydimethyl-siloxane-based sealers were effective only for a short period. Inhibition of the bacterial growth is related to the direct contact of the microorganism with the sealer. 1. Introduction Bacteria or their byproducts are considered to be the primary etiological agents of pulpal necrosis and periapical lesions [1]. The main objective of endodontic therapy is therefore to eliminate bacteria from the infected root canal [2]. The majority of the bacteria found in the root canal system may be eliminated by the biomechanical cleaning and shaping of the root canal space. Failure of the root canal treatment is the result of microorganisms persisting in the apical portion of the root canal system, even in well-treated teeth [3] due to the anatomical complexities of many root canals, such as dentinal tubules, ramifications, deltas, and fins which cannot be sufficiently cleaned, even after meticulous mechanical procedures. Enterococcus faecalis is a recalcitrant candidate among the many causative agents of failed endodontic treatment [4]. 38% of the failed root canal systems were contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis [5]. Chronic failure of an endodontically treated tooth is due to ability of E. faecalis to bind to the collagen of the dentinal tubule and remain viable within the tubules [6]. These microorganisms have the ability to grow even in a low-nutrient environment and can survive in the root canals as a
References
[1]
S. Kakehashi, H. Stanley, and R. Fitzgerald, “The effect of surgical exposures of dental pulps in germ-free and conventional laboratory rats,” Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, vol. 20, pp. 340–349, 1965.
[2]
I. M. Saleh, I. E. Ruyter, M. Haapasalo, and D. ？rstavik, “Survival of Enterococcus faecalis in infected dentinal tubules after root canal filling with different root canal sealers in vitro,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 193–198, 2004.
[3]
P. N. R. Nair, U. Sjo'gren, G. Krey, K.-E. Kahnberg, and G. Sundqvist, “Intraradicular bacteria and fungi in root-filled, asymptomatic human teeth with therapy-resistant periapical lesions: a long-term light and electron microscopic follow-up study,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 16, pp. 580–588, 1990.
[4]
A. K. Mickel, T. H. Nguyen, and S. Chogle, “Antimicrobial activity of endodontic sealers on Enterococcus faecalis,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 257–258, 2003.
[5]
G. Sundqvist, D. Figdor, S. Persson, and U. Sj？gren, “Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative re-treatment,” Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 86–93, 1998.
[6]
M. Haapasalo and D. Orstavik, “In vitro infection and disinfection of dentinal tubules,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 66, no. 8, pp. 1375–1379, 1987.
[7]
M. Trope, E. O. Delano, and D. ？rstavik, “Endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis: single verses multivisit treatment,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 345–350, 1999.
[8]
S. Madison and L. R. Wilcox, “An evaluation of coronal microleakage in endodontically treated teeth. Part III. In vivo study,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 14, no. 9, pp. 455–458, 1988.
[9]
D. Orstavik, “Antibacterial properties of endodontic materials,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 161–169, 1988.
[10]
E. I. Weiss, M. Shalhav, and Z. Fuss, “Assessment of antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers by a direct contact test,” Endodontics and Dental Traumatology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 179–184, 1996.
[11]
M. Shalhav, Z. Fuss, and E. I. Weiss, “In vitro antibacterial activity of a glass ionomer endodontic sealer,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 616–619, 1997.
[12]
L. M. Lin, E. A. Pascon, J. Skribner, P. Gangler, and K. Langeland, “Clinical, radiographic, and histologic study of endodontic treatment failures,” Oral Surgery Oral Medicine and Oral Pathology, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 603–611, 1991.
[13]
J. F. Siqueira Jr., M. De Uzeda, and M. E. Fonseca, “A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of in vitro dentinal tubules penetration by selected anaerobic bacteria,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 308–310, 1996.
[14]
W. Soltanoff, “A comparative study of the single-visit and the multiple-visit endodontic procedure,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 4, pp. 278–281, 1978.
[15]
S. Oliet, “Single-visit endodontics: a clinical study,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 9, pp. 147–152, 1983.
[16]
H. M. Rappaport, G. E. lilly, and P. kapsimalis, “Toxicity of endodontic filling materials,” Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, vol. 18, pp. 785–802, 1964.
[17]
Z. Fuss, E. I. Weiss, and M. Shalhav, “Antibacterial activity of calcium hydroxide-containing endodontic sealers on Enterococcus faecalis in vitro,” International Endodontic Journal, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 397–402, 1997.
[18]
G. Pizzo, G. M. Giammanco, E. Cumbo, G. Nicolosi, and G. Gallina, “In vitro antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers,” Journal of Dentistry, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 35–40, 2006.
[19]
J. Baer and J. S. Maki, “In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial effect of three endodontic sealers mixed with amoxicillin,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 1170–1173, 2010.
[20]
A. E. Kaplan, M. Picca, M. I. Gonzalez, R. L. Macchi, and S. L. Molgatini, “Antimicrobial effect of six endodontic sealers: an in vitro evaluation,” Dental Traumatology, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 42–45, 1999.
[21]
J. F. Siqueira Jr., A. Favieri, S. M. M. Gahyva, S. R. Moraes, K. C. Lima, and H. P. Lopes, “Antimicrobial activity and flow rate of newer and established root canal sealers,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 274–277, 2000.
[22]
M. R. Leonardo, L. A. B. da Silva, M. Tanomaru Filho, K. C. Bonifácio, and I. Y. Ito, “In vitro evaluation of antimicrobial activity of sealers and pastes used in endodontics,” Journal of Endodontics, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 391–394, 2000.
[23]
D. McComb and D. Ericson, “Antimicrobial action of new, proprietary lining cements,” Journal of Dental Research, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 1025–1028, 1987.
[24]
C. J. Palenik, M. J. Behnen, J. C. Setcos, and C. H. Miller, “Inhibition of microbial adherence and growth by various glass ionomers in vitro,” Dental Materials, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 16–20, 1992.
[25]
K. Shashibhushan, N. Basappa, and V. Subba Reddy, “Comparison of antibacterial activity of three fluorides- and zinc-releasing commercial glass ionomer cements on strains of mutans streptococci: an in vitro study,” Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. S56–S61, 2008.
[26]
W. Kubey, P. Luneburg, S. Ericson, J. Brown, and C. J. Holmes, “A longitudinal in vitro antimicrobial evaluation of two silver polymer surface treatments for peritoneal dialysis catheters,” Advances in Peritoneal Dialysis, vol. 11, pp. 193–196, 1995.
