Comparison of Antibacterial Effects of Various Root Canal Irrigants on Enterococcus faecalis
Comparison of Antibacterial Effects of Various Root Canal Irrigants on Enterococcus faecalis
复制标题
各种根管冲洗液对粪肠球菌抗菌效果比较
DOI：
10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1085
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
B. Praveen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Vinaykumar;V. Uppin;Arvind Shenoy;B. Praveen
目的：比较不同根管冲洗剂对粪肠球菌的抗菌效果。测试的冲洗液分别为 5.25% NaOCl、0.2% 葡萄糖酸氯己定和 0.2% 西曲溴铵。材料和方法：对120颗拔除的上颌恒中切牙和侧切牙进行根管预备。根管预备后，用环氧树脂密封根尖孔以防止细菌渗漏。然后根管被粪肠球菌污染。培养后，将受污染的根分为四组，每组 30 个。输送 2 毫米的冲洗液，并在根管中保留 10 分钟。然后用1ml盐水溶液冲洗根管并用45号无菌纸点细菌取样。将管中发生的粪肠球菌的生长接种到血琼脂平板上。统计分析：使用卡方检验统计评估冲洗剂抗菌功效之间的差异。结果：单独使用0.2%葡萄糖酸氯己定和0.2%葡萄糖酸氯己定+0.2%西曲马胺的抗菌效果无显着差异，但均显着低于5.25%次氯酸钠和5.25%次氯酸钠+0.2%葡萄糖酸氯己定的抗菌效果。这种差异具有统计学意义。结论：在本研究的限制范围内，得出的结论是，5.25%次氯酸钠和5.25%次氯酸钠与0.2%葡萄糖酸氯己定比单独使用0.2%葡萄糖酸氯己定和0.2%葡萄糖酸氯己定与西曲溴铵具有更高的抗菌效果。单独使用0.2%葡萄糖酸氯己定和0.25%氯己定与certrimide的抗菌效果没有显着差异。
Aims: To compare the antibacterial effects of various root canal irrigants against E.faecalis. Irrigants tested were 5.25% NaOCl, 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate, and 0.2% cetrimide individually and combined. Materials and methods: Root canal preparation was performed on 120 extracted permanent maxillary central and lateral incisor teeth. Following root canal preparation, apical foramina were sealed with epoxy resin to prevent bacterial leakage. The root canals were then contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis. After incubation, the contaminated roots were divided into four groups of 30 each. 2 mm of irrigant was delivered which remained in the canal for 10 minutes. The canals were then irrigated with 1 ml saline solution and with size 45 sterile paper point bacteria were sampled. The growth of E. faecalis which occurred in the tubes was inoculated onto blood agar plates. Statistical analysis: Difference between the antibacterial efficacies of irrigants was evaluated statistically using chi-square test. Results: There was no significant difference between the antibacterial efficacies of 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate alone and 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate with 0.2% cetrimide, but both had a significantly lower antibacterial effect than 5.25% sodium hypochlorite and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate. This difference was statistically significant. Conclusions: Within limitations of this study, it was concluded that the 5.25% sodium hypochlorite and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate had a higher antibacterial effect than 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate alone and 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate with cetrimide. There was no significant difference between the antibacterial efficacies of 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate alone and 0.25% chlorhexidine with certrimide.