AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the antibacterial efficacy of three root canal irrigating solutions: An antibiotic containing irrigant, Chlorhexidine and Chlorhexidine + Cetrimide. METHODOLOGY: 46 permanent maxillary central incisors were made into standardized segments and sterilized. 6 teeth were used to confirm sterility. The remaining 40 teeth were infected with Enterococcus faecalis for 28 days. They were irrigated with - Group A: Co-amoxiclav/ Citric Acid/Polysorbate-80 (CCP); Group B: 2% Chlorhexidine gluconate; Group C: 2% Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) and 0.2% Cetrimide (CTR); Group D: Saline- Positive Control. Samples were collected from within the canal; spread on 5% sheep blood agar and incubated at 37°C for 48 hours. Colony forming units (CFU) were enumerated and the values were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The results showed CCP has better antibacterial activity than 2% CHX (p<0.05). But, 2% CHX + 0.2% CTR showed better antibacterial effect than both 2% CHX and CCP (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Microbial inhibition potential of CCP observed in this study opens perspectives for its use as an intracanal irrigant. Synergistic action resulted from the mixture of Cetrimide and Chlorhexidine and its efficacy was greater than Chlorhexidine or CCP.
AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the antibacterial efficacy of three root canal irrigating solutions: An antibiotic containing irrigant, Chlorhexidine and Chlorhexidine + Cetrimide. METHODOLOGY: 46 permanent maxillary central incisors were made into standardized segments and sterilized. 6 teeth were used to confirm sterility. The remaining 40 teeth were infected with Enterococcus faecalis for 28 days. They were irrigated with - Group A: Co-amoxiclav/ Citric Acid/Polysorbate-80 (CCP); Group B: 2% Chlorhexidine gluconate; Group C: 2% Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) and 0.2% Cetrimide (CTR); Group D: Saline- Positive Control. Samples were collected from within the canal; spread on 5% sheep blood agar and incubated at 37°C for 48 hours. Colony forming units (CFU) were enumerated and the values were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: The results showed CCP has better antibacterial activity than 2% CHX (p<0.05). But, 2% CHX + 0.2% CTR showed better antibacterial effect than both 2% CHX and CCP (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Microbial inhibition potential of CCP observed in this study opens perspectives for its use as an intracanal irrigant. Synergistic action resulted from the mixture of Cetrimide and Chlorhexidine and its efficacy was greater than Chlorhexidine or CCP.