[Antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities of five final irrigants in infected root canal: an in vitro comparative study].
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities of five root canal irrigants including Qmix, MTAD(mixture of a tetracycline isomer, an acid, and a detergent), 0.2% cetrimide(CTR), 2% chlorhexidine(CHX) and 17% ethylene diaminetetraacetic acid(EDTA) and to find the most optimal final irrigants for using in root canal therapy.


METHODS
The standard enterococcus infection models were built up in 100 single rooted incisors with single canal. Totally 30 teeth were selected by using random number tablefor detecting the quality of the bacteria model. Crown-down technique with rotary ProTaper system was used to prepare the root canals. Then the teeth were randomly divided into seven groups of which five groups were irrigated with five different irrigants respectively, one group was irrigated with distilled water(distilled water group) and one group was no-irrigation group. Each tooth was sectioned into three parts: apical 1/3, middle 1/3 and coronal 1/3. After irrigation, specimenswere cultivated from day 0 to day 14. All statistical analyses were performed by means of SPSS 17.0 software. Chi-squared test was used to evaluate antibacterial activities. Generalized estimating equations was used to evaluate residual antimicrobial activities.


RESULTS
All samples rinsed with Qmix, MTAD, CTR, CHX were bacteria-free in 0 day. The samples rinsed with EDTA and distilled water had no bacteria in 7 coronal sections, 6 middle sections and 9 apical sections, respectively. The results of Qmix, MTAD, CTR and CHX groups showed significant difference when compared with that of distilled water, EDTA and control groups(P<0.05). Residual antimicrobial resultsin EDTA, distilled water, no-irrigation groups showed significant differences compared with that of Qmix, MTAD, CTR, CHX groups according to pairwise comparison(P<0.05) on day 1, 2 and 3. There was no significant difference between the other two groups(P>0.05). Antimicrobial properties on the coronal 1/3 and apical 1/3, middle 1/3 and apical 1/3 showed significant difference(P<0.05) while middle 1/3 and coronal 1/3 showed no significant difference(P>0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
Qmix, MTAD, CTR and CHX had an antimicrobial activity, but could not destroy Enterococcus faecalis completely. Antimicrobial activity in coronal 1/3 was better than in apical 1/3. Qmix, MTAD, CTR and CHX had a residual antimicrobial activity with various lasting times. The lasting time of residual antimicrobial activity was as follow: MTAD> CTR>Qmix>CHX. EDTA had no antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities.
Department of Endodontics, Stomatological Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300070, China.
Z
Z
Wu
Department of Stomatology, Cangzhou Central Hospital, Cangzhou Hebei 061014, China.
X J
XJ
Guo
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Stomatological Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300070, China.
F
F
Qiao
Department of Endodontics, Stomatological Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin 300070, China.
L G
LG
Wu
D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents; D000890:Anti-Infective Agents; D000077286:Cetrimonium; D002593:Cetrimonium Compounds; D002710:Chlorhexidine; D003786:Dental Pulp Cavity; D004492:Edetic Acid; D013293:Enterococcus faecalis; D016908:Gram-Positive Bacterial Infections; D006801:Humans; D008963:Molar; D010518:Periodontitis; D012388:Root Canal Irrigants; D012390:Root Canal Therapy; D012973:Sodium Hypochlorite; D014092:Tooth Root
D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents; D000890:Anti-Infective Agents; D002593:Cetrimonium Compounds; D012388:Root Canal Irrigants; D004492:Edetic Acid; D012973:Sodium Hypochlorite; D002710:Chlorhexidine; D000077286:Cetrimonium