Author(s):
Soniya R, Savithri S, Sangeetha R, Sridevi G
Email(s):
soniya88micro@gmail.com , sangeetharagavan12@gmail.com , sridevig1@srmist.edu.in
DOI:
10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00583 
Address:
Soniya R1, Savithri S2, Sangeetha R3, Sridevi G4
1Lecturer, Department of Microbiology, SRM Dental College, Bharathi salai, Chennai 600089 India.
2Professor and HOD, Department of Microbiology, SRM Dental College, Bharathi salai, Chennai 600089 India.
3Lecturer, Department of Microbiology, SRM Dental College, Bharathi salai, Chennai 600089 India.
4Professor and HOD, Department of Physiology, SRM Dental College, Bharathi salai, Chennai 600089 India.
*Corresponding Author
Published In:
Volume - 17,
Issue - 8,
Year - 2024
ABSTRACT:
This study evaluated the antimicrobial activity of five root canal irrigants against MTCC of Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus, Candida albicans, in-vitro study of the inhibitory activity of PAD in conventional Endodontic Treatment (CET) and also combination of CET with PAD (CHX+PAD). All of these microorganisms were incubated in the presence of an Endodontic irrigant. Agar diffusion tests were performed and colony counts were tested using paper point to evaluate the inhibitory effect of the irrigants. The mean diameters of the inhibition zones for C. albican were 21mm 3% Naocl, 19mm CHX, 0.7PAD, 22mm CHX+PAD, 20mm Fluconazole, 18mm Doxycycline. The zone diameters of the inhibition zones of Enterococcus faecalis were 17mm 0.5% Naocl, 18mm CHX, 12mmPAD, 35mm MTAD, and 19mm PAD+CHX. The Zone Diameter of the inhibition zones of Staphylococcus aureus were 18mmCHX, 12mm PAD, 19mm PAD+CHX, 25mm MTAD, and 19mm 3% NaoCl. Together High inhibitory effect was detected for PAD+CHX and MTAD on all three pathogens. Candida showed more inhibition to all irrigants followed by Staphylococcus aureus and Enterococcus faecalis.
Cite this article:
Soniya R, Savithri S, Sangeetha R, Sridevi G. In-vitro Antimicrobial Activity of Mtad, Photoactivated Disinfection Along with Chlorohexidine on Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2024; 17(8):3752-6. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00583
Cite(Electronic):
Soniya R, Savithri S, Sangeetha R, Sridevi G. In-vitro Antimicrobial Activity of Mtad, Photoactivated Disinfection Along with Chlorohexidine on Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2024; 17(8):3752-6. doi: 10.52711/0974-360X.2024.00583 Available on: https://rjptonline.org/AbstractView.aspx?PID=2024-17-8-31
REFERENCES:
1. Siqueira Jr JF et.al. Polymerase chain reaction-based analysis of microorganisms associated with failed endodontic treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 97(1): 85-94. doi: 10.1067/moe.2002.126163
2. J.Insira Sarbeen et. al. Survey based research on Patients Knowledge about Endodontic Treatment. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2016; 9(10): 1565-1567.
3. Abou-Rass M et al. The effectiveness of four clinical irrigation methods on the removal of root canal debris.OralSurg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1982; 54(3): 323-8. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(82)90103-7
4. Nudera WJ et al. Antimicrobial effect of triclosan on five common Endodontic pathogens J Endod. 2007; Oct: 1239-42.doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.73378
5. D Arcangelo C et al. Pulp-dissolving ability of several Endodontic irrigants: a spectrophotometric evaluation. IJIP. 2007; Apr; 381-6. DOI: 10.1177/039463200702000219
6. Daniel P et al. Invitro antibacterial efficacy of endodontic irrigants against E. faecalis. Oral Surg Oral Medicine. 2007; May; 702-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.11.007
7. Ruksana Sheik et al. Newer Root Canal Irrigants-A Review. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2016; 9(12): 1451-1456. DOI: 10.5958/0974-360X.2016.00473.X.
8. Ravi Gupta et al. Herbal Irrigants: Underutilized Option in Dentistry. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2019; 12(10): 5098-5100. DOI: 10.5958/0974-360X.2019.00883.7.
9. A Bystrom et al.Bacteriologic evaluation of the efficacy of mechanical root canal instrumentation in endodontic therapy Scand J Dent Res. 89 (1981), 321-328. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1981.tb01689.x
10. PNR Nair et al. Microbial status of apical root canal system of human mandibular first molars with primary apical periodontitis after “one-visit” endodontic treatment Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005; 99: 231-252. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.10.005
11. U Sjogren et al.Influence of infection at the time of root filling on the outcome of endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis Int Endod J. 1997; 30: 297-306. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1997.00092.x
12. Joseph dutner et al. Irrigation trends among American Association of Endodontists members: a Web-based survey. J Endod. 2012; 38: 37-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.08.013
13. Antibacterial effects of endodontic irrigants on black-pigmented gram-negative anaerobes and facultative bacteria J Endod. 1998; 24. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80023-X
14. C.E. Radcliffe et al. Antimicrobial activity of varying concentrations of sodium hypochlorite on the endodontic microorganisms Actinomycesisraelii, A. naeslundii, Candida albicans and Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J, 2004; 37: 438-446. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00752.x
15. S. Stojicic et al. Tissue dissolution by sodium hypochlorite: effect of concentration, temperature, agitation, and surfactant. J Endod, 2010; 36. 1558-1562. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.06.021
16. M. Zahed et al. Sodium hypochlorite in endodontics: an updated review. Int Dent J, 2008; 58: 329-341. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2008.tb00354.x
17. B.P. Gomes et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidinegluconate in the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J. 2001; 34: 424-428. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00410.x.
18. E.L. Pashley, et al.. Cytotoxic effects of NaOCl on vital tissue. J Endod, 1985; 11: 525-528. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(85)80197-7
19. A.datot at al.Effects of sodium hypochlorite on soft tissues after its inadvertent injection beyond the root apex. J Endod. 1991; 17: 573-574. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81725-5
20. S. Syed Shihaab, Chlorhexidine: Its Properties and Effects. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2016; 9(10): 1755-1760. DOI: 10.5958/0974-360X.2016.00353.X
21. Harishmitha.P et al. Chlorhexidine and its Role on Oral Health. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2014; 7(12): Dec. 1492-1493.
22. GM Delany etal.The effect of chlorhexidinegluconate irrigation on the root canal flora of freshly extracted necrotic teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1982; 53: 518-523. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(82)90469-8.
23. M. J. Jeansonne et al. A comparison of 2.0% chlorhexidinegluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite as antimicrobial endodontic irrigants. J Endod. 1994; 20: 276-278. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(06)80815-0
24. FM Tatnall et al. Comparative study of antiseptic toxicity on basal keratinocytes transformed human keratinocytes and fibroblasts. Skin Pharmacol. 1990; 3: 157-163. DOI: 10.1159/000210865
25. A.A. Zaia, etal.Chlorhexidine in endodontics. Braz Dent J. 2013; 24: 89-102. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201302188.
26. Marcela R et al. Substantivity of chlorhexidine to human dentin Dent Mater. 2010; 26: 779-785. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.04.002.
27. L.A. Okino et al. Dissolution of pulp tissue by aqueous solution of chlorhexidinedigluconate and chlorhexidinedigluconate gel. Int Endod J. 2004; 37: 38-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00749.x.
28. Torabinejad M, Khademi AA, Babagoli J, Cho Y, Johnson WB, Bozhilov K, et al. A new solution for the removal of the smear layer. J Endod. 2003; 29: 170–5. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200303000-00002.
29. Mozayeni MA et al. Effect of 17% EDTA and MTAD on intracanal smear layer removal: A scanning electron microscopic study. Aust Endod J. 2009; 35: 13–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4477.2007.00111.x.
30. Lee Michael T et al. Photoactivated disinfection of root canals – a new role for lasers in endodontics. Aust. Endod. J. 2004; 30(3): 93–98.doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4477.2004.tb00417.x.
31. Divya. S, et al. Evaluation of Antimicrobial effect of Triphala versus conventional root canal irrigants in primary teeth - An In vivo study. Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 2019; 12(2): 655-659. DOI: 10.5958/0974-360X.2019.00116.1
32. Dennis Mohan et al. Photoactivated disinfection (PAD) of dental root canal system – An ex-vivo study. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2016; Jan; 23(1): 122–127. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2015.01.013.
33. Tirali RE et al. antimicrobial activity of several concentrations of NaOcl and Octenisept in the elimination of the endodontic pathogen. Oral radio Endo. 2009 117-120. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.07.012.
34. Gomes-Filho JE et al. Comparison of the biocompatibility of different root canal irrigants. J Appl Oral Sci. 2008; 16: 137-144. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572008000200011.
35. CR.Gernhardt, et al. Toxicity of concentrated sodium hypochlorite used as an endodontic irrigant. International Endodontic Journal. 37: 272-280. doi: 10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00804.x.
36. Berchier CE, et al. Efficacy of 0.12 % chlorhexidine mouth rinse compared with 0.2 % on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2010; 37: 829-839.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01575.x
37. Roças IN, et al. Comparison of the in vivo antimicrobial effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine used as root canal irrigants: a molecular microbiology study. J Endod 2011; 37: 143-150. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.11.006.
38. Torabinejad M, et al. A new solution for the removal of the smear layer. J Endod. 2003; 29: 170-175. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200303000-00002.
39. Misuriya A, et al. A comparative analysis of root canal irrigation solution. J Contemp Dental Pract. 2014; 15. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1506
40. Nidhi Sharma et al. Antifungal activity of Propolis, Fluconazole and Chlorhexidine against Oral Candida albicans – A Comparative in-vitro Study. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2022; 15(8): 3589-4. DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2022.00601
41. Shivashankar Kengadaran, et al. Comparing the efficacy of Neem extract, Aloe vera juice, and 0.2% Chlorhexidine against dental unit waterline pathogens. an In-vitro study. Research Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2021; 14(4): 2224-8. DOI: 10.52711/0974-360X.2021.00395
42. Mahmoud T et al. The Antimicrobial effect of MTAD: an in vitro investigation. J Endod. 2003. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200306000-00005
43. G. J. Seal, et al. Comparison of the bactericidal efficacy of lethal photosensitization or sodium hypochlorite irrigation on Streptococcus intermediu s biofilms in root canals. Int Endod J. 2002; Mar; 35(3): 268-74. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00477.x
44. Bhavani et al. Comparative evaluation of Antimicrobial efficacy of Chx, MTAD, and chitosan as root canal irrigant against Enterococcus faecalis. 2018; JCDR. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2018/36191.12368
45. Peciuliene V, et al. Isolation of yeast and enteric bacteria in root-filled teeth. Int Endod J, 2001; 34: 429-34. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00411.x.
46. Peter LB, et al. Effect of instrument irrigation, addressing with Calcium hydroxide on infection pulpless teeth. Endod J, 2002; 35: 13-21. doi: 10.1046/j.0143-2885.2001.00447.x.
47. Mickel AK, et al. The role of apical size determination and enlargement in the reduction of intracanal bacteria. J Endod. 2007; 33: 21-3. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.08.004.