| Literature DB >> 24886335 |
Eu Gene Chua, Abhishek Parolia1, Priya Ahlawat, Allan Pau, Fabian Davamani Amalraj.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the antifungal activity of propolis, triple antibiotic paste (TAP), 2% chlorhexidine gel and calcium hydroxide with propylene glycol on Candida albicans-infected root canal dentinal tubules at two different depths (200 μm and 400 μm) and two time intervals (day 1 and 7).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24886335 PMCID: PMC4024013 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-53
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Oral Health ISSN: 1472-6831 Impact factor: 2.757
Figure 1Schematic presentation of the cross section of root canal dentine and drill size selection. Pesso Reamer (Mani®, UT, Japan) size no. 4 (1.3 mm diameter) and no. 6 (1.7 mm) allowed a depth of 0.2 mm (200 μm) and 0.4 mm (400 μm) of dentinal shavings to be collected a 0.9 mm diameter canal respectively.
Comparison of CFUs between the tested medicaments and saline
| Saline | 5 | 3.49×107 | 1.90×107 | 3.40×105 | 2.46×105 | 2.08×107 | 8.95×106 | 3.06×105 | 96500.00 |
| Propolis | 10 | 4695.00 | 4.95×105 | 1.15×105 | 5.33×105 | 896.00 | 53835.21 | 8426.67 | 15389.54 |
| TAP | 10 | 1502.25 | 3520.61 | 1052.63 | 13013.58 | 28.75 | 24.13 | 59.25 | 153.21 |
| CHX | 10 | 4.25 | 172.83 | 3.25 | 76.67 | 21.75 | 101.13 | 1.00 | 25.00 |
| Ca(OH)2-PG | 10 | 865.00 | 2107.88 | 207.83 | 461.91 | 29.25 | 423.42 | 6.25 | 107.75 |
Median and Interquartile range of all the groups are also shown.
Mann–Whitney U-test to study the difference between various intracanal medicaments and CFU
| | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | ||||||||
| Saline vs Propolis | 3.49x107 (99.98%) | 0.003 | 2.25×105 (66.18%) | 0.096 | 2.08×107 (99.99%) | 0.003 | 2.98×105 (97.25%) | 0.003 |
| Saline vs TAP | 3.49x107 (99.99%) | 0.003 | 3.39×105 (99.69%) | 0.013 | 2.08×107 (99.99%) | 0.003 | 3.06×105 (99.98%) | 0.003 |
| Saline vs CHX | 3.49x107 (99.99%) | 0.003 | 3.40×107 (99.99%) | 0.003 | 2.08×107 (99.99%) | 0.003 | 3.06×105 (99.99%) | 0.003 |
| Saline vs Ca(OH)2-PG | 3.49x107 (99.99%) | 0.003 | 3.40×105 (99.99%) | 0.003 | 2.08×107 (99.99%) | 0.003 | 3.06×105 (99.99%) | 0.003 |
| Propolis vs TAP | 3192.75 (68%) | 0.102 | 1.14×105 (99.08%) | 0.021 | 867.25 (96.79%) | 0.001 | 8367.42 (99.30%) | 0.001 |
| Propolis vs CHX | 4690.75 (99.91%) | 0.001 | 1.15×105 (99.99%) | 0.000 | 874.25 (97.57%) | 0.003 | 8425.67 (99.99%) | 0.000 |
| Propolis vs Ca(OH)2-PG | 3830.00 (81.58%) | 0.047 | 1.15×105 (99.82%) | 0.001 | 866.75 (96.74%) | 0.012 | 8420.42 (99.93%) | 0.001 |
| TAP vs CHX | 1498.00 (99.71%) | 0.004 | 3347.78 (95.09%) | 0.001 | 7.00 (24.34%) | 0.965 | 58.25 (98.31%) | 0.004 |
| TAP vs Ca(OH)2-PG | 637.25 (42.42%) | 0.847 | 844.80 (80.24%) | 0.027 | 0.50 (1.71%) | 0.627 | 50.00 (84.39%) | 0.102 |
| CHX vs Ca(OH)2-PG | 860.75 (99.51%) | 0.002 | 204.58 (98.44%) | 0.004 | 7.50 (25.64%) | 0.354 | 5.25 (84.00%) | 0.157 |
*p-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
***p-value < 0.005 was considered as highly significant.
Figure 2Comparison of percentage reduction in median CFU intracanal medicaments at 200 μm dentinal tubule depths on day 1 and day 7. (p value < 0.05 = *, p < 0.01 = **, p < 0.001 = ***).
Figure 3Comparison of percentage reduction in median CFU intracanal medicaments at 400 μm dentinal tubule depths on day 1 and day 7. (p value < 0.05 = *, p < 0.01 = **, p < 0.001 = ***).