Comparative in vitro antibacterial activity of six root canal sealers against Enterococcus faecalis and Proteus vulgaris.

AIM To evaluate the antimicrobial properties of six endodontic sealers in unset and set states against Enterococcus faecalis and Proteus vulgaris. METHODS Six endodontic sealers were investigated in the unset and set state against Enterococcus feacalis and Proteus vulgaris using agar diffusion and direct contact tests. RESULTS The mean inhibition zones for agar diffusion tests with Enterococcus feacalis were 19 mm for AH-26, 11 mm for TopSeal and Roth 601, 1 mm for AH-Plus, and 0 mm for GuttaFlow and EndoREZ (Kruskal-Wallis, P < 0.001). The mean inhibition zones with Proteus vulgaris were 24 mm for Roth 601, 19 mm for TopSeal, 17 mm for AH-Plus, 16 mm for AH-26, and 0 mm for GuttaFlow and EndoREZ (Kruskal-Wallis, P < 0.001). Direct contact tests showed inhibition of both Enterococcus feacalis and Proteus vulgaris with AH-Plus, TopSeal, Roth 601, and AH-26 in the unset state. Only Roth 601 in the set state affected both the log and the stationary phase of Proteus vulgaris (logistic regression P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS With the exception of Roth 601, which retained its antimicrobial activity, the AH-Plus, TopSeal, and AH-26 sealers all demonstrated antimicrobial properties against Enterococcus feacalis and Proteus vulgaris that diminished when set. TopSeal significantly affected Enterococcus feacalis when compared with AH-Plus. GuttaFlow and EndoREZ expressed no antimicrobial activity.

[1]  B. Willershausen,et al.  In vitro analysis of the cytotoxicity and the antimicrobial effect of four endodontic sealers , 2011, Head & face medicine.

[2]  M. Parande,et al.  A comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy and flow properties for Epiphany, Guttaflow and AH-Plus sealer. , 2011, International endodontic journal.

[3]  Yazdan Shantiaee,et al.  In Vitro Evaluation of the Antibacterial Activity of Three Root Canal Sealers , 2010, Iranian endodontic journal.

[4]  Ya Shen,et al.  Antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers by modified direct contact test against Enterococcus faecalis. , 2009, Journal of endodontics.

[5]  A. Khraisat,et al.  In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of nine root canal sealers: direct contact test. , 2008, Odonto-stomatologie tropicale = Tropical dental journal.

[6]  E. Weiss,et al.  Antibacterial properties of four endodontic sealers. , 2008, Journal of endodontics.

[7]  A. Erdemir,et al.  Assessment of antibacterial activity of EndoREZ. , 2006, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[8]  G. Pizzo,et al.  In vitro antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers. , 2006, Journal of dentistry.

[9]  Z. Mohammadi,et al.  In vitro evaluation of antibacterial activities of root canal sealers. , 2005, The Journal of clinical dentistry.

[10]  S. Belli,et al.  In vitro antibacterial activities of root-canal sealers by using two different methods. , 2004, Journal of endodontics.

[11]  L. E. Chávez de Paz,et al.  Bacteria recovered from teeth with apical periodontitis after antimicrobial endodontic treatment. , 2003, International endodontic journal.

[12]  A. Mickel,et al.  Antimicrobial activity of endodontic sealers on Enterococcus faecalis. , 2003, Journal of endodontics.

[13]  R. Love,et al.  Biocompatibility of dental materials used in contemporary endodontic therapy: a review. Part 2. Root-canal-filling materials. , 2003, International endodontic journal.

[14]  M. L. Hicks,et al.  Comparison of laterally condensed .06 and .02 tapered Gutta-Percha and sealer in vitro. , 2001, Journal of endodontics.

[15]  M. Chou,et al.  Antimicrobial activity of four root canal sealers against endodontic pathogens , 2001, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[16]  M. Marchesan,et al.  Evaluation of Er:YAG laser and EDTAC on dentin adhesion of six endodontic sealers. , 2001, Brazilian dental journal.

[17]  J F Siqueira,et al.  Aetiology of root canal treatment failure: why well-treated teeth can fail. , 2001, International endodontic journal.

[18]  G. Reifferscheid,et al.  Genotoxicity of dental materials. , 1996, Mutation research.

[19]  E. Saunders,et al.  The antimicrobial activity of endodontic sealers to anaerobic bacteria. , 1996, International endodontic journal.

[20]  L. Spångberg,et al.  AH26 releases formaldehyde , 1993 .

[21]  T. Nielsen,et al.  Chelate root filling cements: biological properties. , 1993, Journal of Endodontics.

[22]  M. T. Jiménez de Anta,et al.  Antimicrobial activity of seven root canal sealers. Results of agar diffusion and agar dilution tests. , 1992, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[23]  M. Torabinejad,et al.  In vitro bacterial penetration of coronally unsealed endodontically treated teeth. , 1990, Journal of endodontics.

[24]  K. Safavi,et al.  Root canal dentinal tubule disinfection. , 1990, Journal of endodontics.

[25]  M. Haapasalo,et al.  In vitro infection and disinfection of dentinal tubules. , 1987, Journal of dental research.

[26]  W. Hume,et al.  The pharmacologic and toxicological properties of zinc oxide-eugenol. , 1986, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[27]  D. Ørstavik.  Antibacterial properties of root canal sealers, cements and pastes. , 1981 .

[28]  D. Orstavik.  Antibacterial properties of root canal sealers, cements and pastes. , 1981, International endodontic journal.