AIM: To compare the efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite, with that of conventional syringe irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite, on intraradicular Enterococcus faecalis biofilms in extracted single-rooted human teeth. METHODOLOGY: Biofilms of E. faecalis (strain OMGS 3202) were grown on the prepared root canal walls of 48 standardized root halves which had been longitudinally sectioned. Following reapproximation, the roots were divided into four groups of twelve. The two experimental groups were treated with conventional syringe irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite solution (experimental group A) and passive ultrasonic irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite solution (experimental group B). Of the two control groups, the first was treated with conventional syringe irrigation with sterile saline solution (control group C), whilst the second control group (D) received no irrigation. The root halves were processed for scanning electron microscopy. Three images (x 700), coronal, middle and apical, were taken of the twelve root halves in each of the four groups, using a standardized protocol. The images were randomized and biofilm coverage assessed independently by three calibrated examiners, using a four-point scoring system. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the scores for remaining biofilm coverage between group A (conventional syringe irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite) and group B (passive ultrasonic irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite) at the three observed levels. There was a significant difference between both experimental groups (groups A and B) and group C (conventional syringe irrigation with sterile saline solution) (P < 0.001) at all three observed levels. CONCLUSIONS: Both conventional syringe irrigation and passive ultrasonic irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite were effective at completely removing intraradicular E. faecalis biofilms. Conventional syringe irrigation with sterile saline solution was only partially effective at removing the biofilms.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite, with that of conventional syringe irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite, on intraradicular Enterococcus faecalis biofilms in extracted single-rooted human teeth. METHODOLOGY: Biofilms of E. faecalis (strain OMGS 3202) were grown on the prepared root canal walls of 48 standardized root halves which had been longitudinally sectioned. Following reapproximation, the roots were divided into four groups of twelve. The two experimental groups were treated with conventional syringe irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite solution (experimental group A) and passive ultrasonic irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite solution (experimental group B). Of the two control groups, the first was treated with conventional syringe irrigation with sterile saline solution (control group C), whilst the second control group (D) received no irrigation. The root halves were processed for scanning electron microscopy. Three images (x 700), coronal, middle and apical, were taken of the twelve root halves in each of the four groups, using a standardized protocol. The images were randomized and biofilm coverage assessed independently by three calibrated examiners, using a four-point scoring system. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the scores for remaining biofilm coverage between group A (conventional syringe irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite) and group B (passive ultrasonic irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite) at the three observed levels. There was a significant difference between both experimental groups (groups A and B) and group C (conventional syringe irrigation with sterile saline solution) (P < 0.001) at all three observed levels. CONCLUSIONS: Both conventional syringe irrigation and passive ultrasonic irrigation with 1% sodium hypochlorite were effective at completely removing intraradicular E. faecalis biofilms. Conventional syringe irrigation with sterile saline solution was only partially effective at removing the biofilms.
Authors: Tina Rödig; Sarah Endres; Frank Konietschke; Ortrud Zimmermann; Hans Georg Sydow; Annette Wiegand Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2016-09-03 Impact factor: 3.573