| Literature DB >> 33150176 |
Azita Azad1, Sahar Rostamifar2, Farzan Modaresi3, Ali Bazrafkan2, Zahra Rezaie4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) is the most important species in dentistry and plays a significant role in the etiology of persistent apical lesions after root canal treatment. Up to date, the intracanal application of 2% chlorhexidine for 7 days is the best way to eliminate E. faecalis. However, due to the ability of this bacterium to persist and survive in harsh environments, many studies have been directed towards finding an alternative strategy for prevention or eradication of it. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of bismuth nanoparticles on E. faecalis, as an etiologic factor in recurrent root canal infections.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33150176 PMCID: PMC7603547 DOI: 10.1155/2020/5465439
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Oligonucleotide used in this study for identification of Enterococcus faecalis by PCR [25].
| Target DNA | Sequence of primer (5′-3′) | Condition | Amplicon size (pb) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16S rRNA | GTTTATGCCGCATGGCATAAGA G CCGTCAGGGGACGTTCAG | 95°C -2 min; 36 cycles (95°C -30 s; 60°C -60 s; 72°C 60 s) and 72°C -2 min | 310 |
Figure 1Electrophoresis of E. faecalis 16S rRNA gene on 1% agarose gel. The target gene was of 310 bp. Lane 1: control positive. Lanes 2–16: PCR product of 16S rRNA gene (310 bp); ladder: 100 bp DNA size marker.
Characteristics of the patients and presence of E. faecalis.
| Patient no. | Age (year) | Gender (M/F) | Presence of | Patient no. | Age (year) | Gender (M/F) | Presence of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 19 | M | + | 21 | 43 | F | + |
| 2 | 29 | F | + | 22 | 31 | M | + |
| 3 | 20 | M | + | 23 | 30 | M | + |
| 4 | 41 | M | - | 24 | 28 | F | - |
| 5 | 22 | F | + | 25 | 20 | F | + |
| 6 | 18 | F | + | 26 | 45 | M | + |
| 7 | 45 | F | - | 27 | 45 | M | + |
| 8 | 40 | M | + | 28 | 33 | F | - |
| 9 | 33 | M | + | 29 | 20 | M | + |
| 10 | 30 | M | + | 30 | 29 | M | + |
| 11 | 32 | M | + | 31 | 30 | F | + |
| 12 | 39 | M | + | 32 | 36 | F | + |
| 13 | 19 | F | - | 33 | 37 | F | + |
| 14 | 27 | M | - | 34 | 20 | M | + |
| 15 | 21 | F | + | 35 | 19 | M | - |
| 16 | 35 | M | + | 36 | 24 | F | - |
| 17 | 19 | F | + | 37 | 34 | M | + |
| 18 | 37 | F | + | 38 | 31 | M | + |
| 19 | 26 | M | - | 39 | 24 | F | + |
| 20 | 36 | M | + | 40 | 40 | F | + |
Figure 2High-resolution transmission electron microscopic image of an isolated bismuth nanoparticles performed by JEOL Jem 1011 Electron Microscope.
MIC and MBC values of BiNPs against E. faecalis.
| Patient no. | Presence of | The MIC of BiNP ( | MBC of BiNP | Patient no. | Presence of | The MIC of BiNP ( | MBC of BiNP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | + | 2.5 | 5 | 21 | + | 1.25 | 2.5 |
| 2 | + | 5 | 10 | 22 | + | 5 | 10 |
| 3 | + | 1.25 | 2.5 | 23 | + | 5 | 5 |
| 4 | - | - | - | 24 | - | - | - |
| 5 | + | 2.5 | 5 | 25 | + | 2.5 | 5 |
| 6 | + | 5 | 5 | 26 | + | 1.25 | 5 |
| 7 | - | - | - | 27 | + | 1.25 | 5 |
| 8 | + | 20 | 40 | 28 | - | - | - |
| 9 | + | 2.5 | 5 | 29 | + | 5 | 10 |
| 10 | + | 1.25 | 2.5 | 30 | + | 2.5 | 5 |
| 11 | + | 0.625 | 2.5 | 31 | + | 0.625 | 1.25 |
| 12 | + | 1.25 | 5 | 32 | + | 0.625 | 1.25 |
| 13 | - | - | - | 33 | + | 5 | 10 |
| 14 | - | - | - | 34 | + | 2.5 | 5 |
| 15 | + | 5 | 10 | 35 | - | - | - |
| 16 | + | 10 | 20 | 36 | - | - | - |
| 17 | + | 2.5 | 5 | 37 | + | 1.25 | 1.25 |
| 18 | + | 0.625 | 1.25 | 38 | + | 0.625 | 1.25 |
| 19 | - | - | - | 39 | + | 5 | 10 |
| 20 | + | 1.25 | 2.5 | 40 | + | 10 | 20 |