In vitro antimicrobial activity of different electrochemicallyactivated solutions on enterococcus faecalis

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 53 Sayı: 1, 44 - 50, 31.01.2019

Makbule Bilge Akbulut , Ayçe Ünverdi Eldeniz

Öz

Purpose

The aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the antimicrobial efficacy

of different electrochemically-activated solutions (ECA) and contemporary

irrigants, in root canals infected with Enterococcus faecalis, used with or without

EndoActivator (EA).

Materials and methods

A hundred single-rooted human teeth were prepared. Ninety of the root

segments were infected with E. faecalis for four weeks, and divided into eight

test groups (n = 10) (four with and four without EA sonication) and a positive

control (n = 10). The irrigants tested were electrochemically-activated solutions

produced by the Medilox® (ECA-MX) and Envirolyte® devices (ECA-EN), 2%

CHX and 2.5% NaOCl. The root specimens were irrigated with 5 mL of the test

solution, with additional sonic agitation applied to the EA groups. The dentine

samples that were obtained from the walls were cultured, and the antibacterial

efficacy was evaluated by counting the colony-forming units.

Results

The ECA-EN, 2.5% NaOCl and 2% CHX were more effective than the ECA-MX (p <

0.05) with the addition of EA sonication, showing no statistical difference in the

elimination of E. faecalis.

Conclusion

The ECA-EN shows potential as an endodontic irrigant, while EA usage gives no

benefit in reducing bacteria from root canals.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Electrochemically-activated solution, EndoActivator, endodontics, Enterococcus faecalis, root canal irrigants

Kaynakça

• 1. Kakehashi S, Stanley HR, Fitzgerald RJ. The Effects of Surgical Exposures of Dental Pulps in Germ-Free and Conventional Laboratory Rats. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1965;20:340-9. [CrossRef ] 2. Sundqvist G, Figdor D, Persson S, Sjögren U. Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative re-treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;85:86-93. [CrossRef ] 3. Nair P, Henry S, Cano V, Vera J. Microbial status of apical root canal system of human mandibular first molars with primary apical periodontitis after “one-visit” endodontic treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;99:231-52. [CrossRef] 4. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod 2006;32:389-98. [CrossRef] 5. Frais S, Ng YL, Gulabivala K. Some factors affecting the concentration of available chlorine in commercial sources of sodium hypochlorite. Int Endod J 2001;34:206-15. [CrossRef ] 6. Marais J. Cleaning efficacy of a new root canal irrigation solution: a preliminary evaluation. Int Endod J 2000;33:320-5. [CrossRef ] 7. Jeansonne MJ, White RR. A comparison of 2.0% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite as antimicrobial endodontic irrigants. J Endod 1994;20:276-8. [CrossRef ] 8. Siqueira JF, de Uzeda M. Intracanal medicaments: evaluation of the antibacterial effects of chlorhexidine, metronidazole, and calcium hydroxide associated with three vehicles. J Endod 1997;23:167-9. [CrossRef ] 9. Kuruvilla JR, Kamath MP. Antimicrobial activity of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite and 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate separately and combined, as endodontic irrigants. J Endod 1998;24:472-6. [CrossRef ] 10. Horiba N, Hiratsuka K, Onoe T, et al. Bactericidal effect of electrolyzed neutral water on bacteria isolated from infected root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;87:83-7. [CrossRef ] 11. Marais J, Williams W. Antimicrobial effectiveness of electrochemically activated water as an endodontic irrigation solution. Int Endod J 2001;34:237-43. [CrossRef ] 12. Rossi‐Fedele G, Steier L, Dogramaci EJ, et al. Bovine pulp tissue dissolution ability of HealOzone®, Aquatine Alpha Electrolyte® and sodium hypochlorite. Aust Endod J 2013;39:57-61. [CrossRef] 13. Solovyeva A, Dummer P. Cleaning effectiveness of root canal irrigation with electrochemically activated anolyte and catholyte solutions: a pilot study. Int Endod J 2000;33:494-504. [CrossRef ] 14. Ruddle CJ. Endodontic Disinfection. Endodontic Practice. 2008. 15. Pasqualini D, Cuffini AM, Scotti N, et al. Comparative evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of a 5% sodium hypochlorite subsonicactivated solution. J Endod 2010;36:1358-60. [CrossRef] 16. Niu LN, Luo XJ, Li GH, et al. Effects of different sonic activation protocols on debridement efficacy in teeth with single-rooted canals. J Dent 2014;42:1001-9. [CrossRef ] 17. Evans MD, Baumgartner JC, Khemaleelakul S-u, Xia T. Efficacy of calcium hydroxide: chlorhexidine paste as an intracanal medication in bovine dentin. J Endod 2003;29:338-9. [CrossRef ] 18. Siren E, Haapasalo M, Ranta K, et al. Microbiological findings and clinical treatment procedures in endodontic cases selected for microbiological investigation. Int Endod J 1997;30:91-5. [CrossRef ] 19. Saleh I, Ruyter I, Haapasalo M, Ørstavik D. Survival of Enterococcus faecalis in infected dentinal tubules after root canal filling with different root canal sealers in vitro. Int Endod J 2004;37:193-8. [CrossRef ] 20. Haapasalo M, Qrstavik D. In vitro infection and disinfection of dentinal tubules. J Dent Res 1987;66:1375-9. [CrossRef ] 21. Abdullah M, Ng YL, Gulabivala K, et al. Susceptibilties of two Enterococcus faecalis phenotypes to root canal medications. J Endod 2005;31:30-6. [CrossRef ] 22. Haapasalo HK, Siren EK, Waltimo TM, et al. Inactivation of local root canal medicaments by dentine: an in vitro study. Int Endod J 2000;33:126-31. [CrossRef ] 23. Sundqvist G, Figdor D. Life as an endodontic pathogen. Endodontic Topics 2003;6:3-28. [CrossRef ] 24. Arias-Moliz MT, Ferrer-Luque CM, Gonzalez-Rodriguez MP, et al. Eradication of Enterococcus faecalis biofilms by cetrimide and chlorhexidine. J Endod 2010;36:87-90. [CrossRef ] 25. Mohammadi Z, Shahriari S. Residual antibacterial activity of chlorhexidine and MTAD in human root dentin in vitro. J Oral Sci 2008;50:63-7. [CrossRef ] 26. Sampson M, Muir A. Not all super-oxidized waters are the same. J Hosp Infect 2002;52:228-9. [CrossRef ] 27. Landa-Solis C, Gonzalez-Espinosa D, Guzman-Soriano B, et al. Microcyn TM: a novel super-oxidized water with neutral pH and disinfectant activity. J Hosp Infect 2005;61:291-9. [CrossRef ] 28. Fukuzaki S. Mechanisms of actions of sodium hypochlorite in cleaning and disinfection processes. Biocontrol science 2006;11:147-57. [CrossRef ] 29. Shraev T, Legchilo A, Kharlamov A, Legchilo A. Sanitization of bronchial pathways by electrochemically activated solution of 0.8% potassium chloride. Anesteziologiia i reanimatologiia 1993;1:22-3. 30. Ring KC, Murray PE, Namerow KN, et al. The comparison of the effect of endodontic irrigation on cell adherence to root canal dentin. J Endod 2008;34:1474-9. [CrossRef ] 31. Gomi K, Makino T, Suzuki S, et al. Microbicidal and cytotoxic effects of functional water in vitro. Quintessence Int 2010;41:e166-72. 32. González‐Espinosa D, Pérez‐Romano L, Guzmán‐Soriano B, et al. Effects of pH‐neutral, super‐oxidised solution on human dermal fibroblasts in vitro. Int Wound J 2007;4:241-50. [CrossRef ] 33. Chen X, Li P, Wang X, et al. Ex vivo antimicrobial efficacy of strong acid electrolytic water against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm. Int Endod J 2013;46:938-46. [CrossRef ] 34. Rossi-Fedele G, Figueiredo JAPd, Steier L, et al. Evaluation of the antimicrobial effect of super-oxidized water (Sterilox®) and sodium hypochlorite against Enterococcus faecalis in a bovine root canal model. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18:498-502. [CrossRef ] 35. Smith R, Constants AMCS. Vol. 4: Inorganic Complexes. In.: Plenum Press, New York and London; 1976. 36. Bloomfield SF, MILES GA. The antibacterial properties of sodium dichloroisocyanurate and sodium hypochlorite formulations. J Appl Bacteriol 1979;46:65-73. [CrossRef ] 37. Vianna ME, Gomes BP, Berber VB, et al. In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of chlorhexidine and sodium hypochlorite. Oral Surgery, Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;97:79-84. [CrossRef ] 38. Hope CK, Garton SG, Wang Q, et al. A direct comparison between extracted tooth and filter-membrane biofilm models of endodontic irrigation using Enterococcus faecalis. Arch Microbiol 2010;192:775-81. [CrossRef ] 39. Huffaker SK, Safavi K, Spangberg LS, Kaufman B. Influence of a passive sonic irrigation system on the elimination of bacteria from root canal systems: a clinical study. J Endod 2010;36:1315- 18. [CrossRef ] 40. Ordinola‐Zapata R, Bramante C, Aprecio R, et al. Biofilm removal by 6% sodium hypochlorite activated by different irrigation techniques.Int Endod J 2014;47:659-66. [CrossRef ] 41. Brito PR, Souza LC, de Oliveira JCM, et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of three irrigation techniques in reducing intracanal Enterococcus faecalis populations: an in vitro study. J Endod 2009;35:1422-7. [CrossRef ] 42. Bago I, Plecko V, Gabric Panduric D, et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of a high-power diode laser, photo-activated disinfection, conventional and sonic activated irrigation during root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2013;46:339-47. [CrossRef ] 43. Wang Z, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. Effectiveness of endodontic disinfecting solutions against young and old Enterococcus faecalis biofilms in dentin canals. J Endod 2012;38:1376-9. [CrossRef ] 44. Shen Y, Stojicic S, Qian W, et al. The synergistic antimicrobial effect by mechanical agitation and two chlorhexidine preparations on biofilm bacteria. J Endod 2010;36:100-4. [CrossRef ] 45. de Gregorio C, Estevez R, Cisneros R, et al. Effect of EDTA, sonic, and ultrasonic activation on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into simulated lateral canals: an in vitro study. J Endod 2009;35:891-5. [CrossRef ] 46. Macedo R, Verhaagen B, Rivas DF, et al. Cavitation measurement during sonic and ultrasonic activated irrigation. J Endod 2014;40:580-3. [CrossRef ]