| Literature DB >> 26346574 |
Marcia Carneiro Valera1, Flávia Goulart da Rosa Cardoso1, Adriana Chung1, Ana Cláudia Carvalho Xavier1, Mariana Diehl Figueiredo1, Frederico Canato Martinho1, Renato Miotto Palo1.
Abstract
This study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of different irrigants used to remove endotoxins and cultivable microorganisms during endodontic therapy. Forty root canals were contaminated and divided into groups according to the irrigant: 2% NaOCl + surfactant, 2% CHX, 2.5% NaOCl, and pyrogen-free saline solution (control). Samples were collected after root canal contamination (S1), after instrumentation (S2), and 7 days after instrumentation (S3). Microorganisms and endotoxins were recovered from 100% of the contaminated root canals (S1). At S2, 2% NaOCl + surfactant, 2% CHX, and 2.5% NaOCl were able to completely eliminate cultivable microorganisms. At S3, both 2% CHX and 2.5% NaOCl were effective in preventing C. albicans and E. coli regrowth, but E. faecalis was still detected. No microorganism species was recovered from root canals instrumented with 2% NaOCl + surfactant. At S2, a higher percentage value of endotoxin reduction was found for 2% NaOCl + surfactant (99.3%) compared to 2% CHX (98.9%) and 2.5% NaOCl (97.18%) (p < 0.05). Moreover, at S3, 2% NaOCl + surfactant (100%) was the most effective irrigant against endotoxins. All irrigants tested were effective in reducing microorganisms and endotoxins from root canals. Moreover, 2% NaOCl + surfactant was the most effective irrigant against endotoxins and regrowth of microorganisms.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26346574 PMCID: PMC4546762 DOI: 10.1155/2015/125636
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Distribution of the median colony-forming unit (CFU/mL) and median percentage of bacterial load reduction found at all different sampling times (S1, S2, and S3).
| Groups | Microorganisms | Baseline (S1) | After instrumentation (S2) | After 7 days (S3) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFU/mL | Positive culture | CFU/mL | Negative culture | Median % valued | CFU/mL | Negative culture | Median % valued | ||
| GI |
| 2.0 × 107 | 10/10 | 0 | 9/10 | 100 (50.33–100) | 0 | 10/10 | 100 |
|
| 2.55 × 105 | 10/10 | 0 | 9/10 | 100 (48.53–100) | 0 | 10/10 | 100 | |
|
| 3.12 × 105 | 10/10 | 0 | 10/10 | 100 | 0 | 10/10 | 100 | |
|
| |||||||||
| GII |
| 9.25 × 107 | 10/10 | 0 | 10/10 | 100 | 0 | 9/10 | 100 (62.91–100) |
|
| 3.06 × 105 | 10/10 | 0 | 10/10 | 100 | 0 | 10/10 | 100 | |
|
| 3.36 × 105 | 10/10 | 0 | 10/10 | 100 | 0 | 10/10 | 100 | |
|
| |||||||||
| GIII |
| 2.15 × 107 | 10/10 | 0 | 10/10 | 100 | 1.0 × 102 | 7/10 | 72.6 (55.58–100) |
|
| 1.10 × 105 | 10/10 | 0 | 10/10 | 100 | 0 | 10/10 | 100 | |
|
| 3.19 × 105 | 10/10 | 0 | 10/10 | 100 | 0 | 10/10 | 100 | |
|
| |||||||||
| GIV |
| 1.84 × 107 | 10/10 | 5.0 × 101 | 0/10 | 33 (29.62–42.69) | 1.0 × 103 | 0/10 | 30.88 (26.47–36.13) |
|
| 1.06 × 105 | 10/10 | 8.96 × 104 | 1/10 | 80.63 (26.83–100) | 1.40 × 105 | 1/10 | 78.10 (29–100) | |
|
| 3.52 × 105 | 10/10 | 4.48 × 102 | 0/10 | 36.39 (21.59–42.69) | 4.32 × 104 | 0/10 | 38.53 (19.51–47.93) | |
Statistical differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 1Descriptive analysis of the reduction percentages in the first and second samplings (S2 and S3) in relation to the initial sampling (S1).