The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Antibacterial Efficacy of Irrigants with Varying Osmolarity on E. faecalis Biofilm: An In Vitro Study

Pradeeba Anandi Jeya Goutham, Arathi Ganesh, C Benedict Paul

Keywords : Chlorhexidine, Hyperosmotic salt solution, Hypoosmotic salt solution, Irrigants, Osmolarity, Povidone iodine, Root canal disinfection, Sodium hypochlorite

Citation Information : Goutham PA, Ganesh A, Paul CB. Antibacterial Efficacy of Irrigants with Varying Osmolarity on E. faecalis Biofilm: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (10):998-1003.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3417

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 07-03-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the role of the addition of different concentrations of sodium chloride salt to conventional intracanal irrigants to vary their osmotic values and thereby compare their antibacterial efficacy. Materials and methods: In an active attachment biofilm model, Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 29212) biofilms were grown. Sodium chloride salts were added to 100 mL of distilled water to make 6M (hyperosmotic), 0.5M, and 0.25M (hypoosmotic) sodium chloride solutions, respectively. The experimental groups were divided into three groups: Group I: 5.25% sodium hypochlorite, group II: 2% chlorhexidine, and group III: 2% povidone iodine, and four subgroups within these three groups, such as subgroup A (without salt solution), subgroup B (with 6M of hyperosmotic salt solution), subgroup C (with 0.5M of hypoosmotic salt solution), and subgroup D (with 0.25M of hypoosmotic salt solution), respectively. Biofilms were treated with all the subgroups for a contact time of 15 min. A crystal violet assay was done to estimate the bacterial cell biomass. Results: The results revealed that subgroups IIIB, IB, and IID, ID had a statistical reduction in bacterial biomass at p < 0.05. There were no significant differences between subgroups IC, IIC, and IIIC and subgroups IA, IIA, and IIIA. Conclusion: The antibacterial efficacy of all three irrigants was significantly affected by varying the osmolarities. Clinical significance: The results prove that the hyperosmotic and hypoosmotic salt solutions, along with irrigants, have enhanced antibacterial efficacy on E. faecalis biofilm due to its ability to vary the turgor pressure of cell wall, as well as the inherent properties of the irrigants such as hypochlorous acid formation, ionic interaction, and free radical interactions.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Tabassum S, Khan FR. Failure of endodontic treatment: the usual suspects. Eur J Dent 2016;10:144–147. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.175682.
  2. Love RM. Enterococcus faecalis – a mechanism for its role in endodontic failure. Int Endod J 2001;34:399–405. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00437.x.
  3. Brändle N, Zehnder M, Weiger R, et al. Impact of growth conditions on susceptibility of five microbial species to alkaline stress. J Endod 2008;34:579–582. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.02.027.
  4. Weckwerth PH, Zapata RO, Vivan RR, et al. In vitro alkaline pH resistance of Enterococcus faecalis. Braz Dent J 2013;24(5): 474–476. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201301731.
  5. Evans M, Davies JK, Sundqvist G, et al. Mechanisms involved in the resistance of Enterococcus faecalis to calcium hydroxide. Int Endod J 2002;35:221–228. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00504.x.
  6. Zand V, Lotfi M, Soroush MH, et al. Antibacterial efficacy of different concentrations of sodium hypochlorite gel and solution on Enterococcus faecalis biofilm. Iran Endod J 201611(4):315–319. DOI: 10.22037/iej.2016.11.
  7. Oncag O, Hosgor M, Hilmioglu S, et al. Comparison of antibacterial and toxic effects of various root canal irrigants. Int Endod J 2003;36:423–432. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00673.x.
  8. Gomes BP, Ferraz CC, Vianna ME, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate in the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J 2001;34:424–428. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00410.x.
  9. Vianna ME, Gomes BP, Berber VB, et al. In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of chlorhexidine and sodium hypochlorite. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004; 97:79–84. DOI: 10.1016/s1079-2104(03)00360-3.
  10. Siddiqui MW, Rahman MS, Bansal V. Minimally Processed Foods, Food Engineering Series, Springer International Publishing Switzerland.2015:1–15. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-10677-9_1.
  11. Rossi-Fedele G & Guastalli AR: Osmolarity and root canal antiseptics. Int Endod J 2014;7:314–320. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12153.
  12. Van der Waal SV, Van der Sluis LWM, zok ARO et al. The effects of hyperosmosis or high pH on a dual-species biofilm of Enterococcus faecalis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa: an in vitro study. Int Endod J 2011;44:1110–1117. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01929.x.
  13. Seneviratne CJ, Yip JW, Chang JW, et al. Effect of culture media and nutrients on biofilm growth kinetics of laboratory and clinical strains of Enterococcus faecalis. Arch Oral Biol 2013;58(10):1327–1334. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2013.06.017.
  14. Pourhajibagher M, Chiniforush N, Shahabi S, et al. Antibacterial and antibiofilm efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy against intracanal Enterococcus faecalis: an in vitro comparative study with traditional endodontic irrigation solutions. J Dent (Tehran) 2018;15(4):197–204. PMID: 30405728.
  15. Athanassiadis B, Abbott PV, Walsh LJ. The use of calcium hydroxide, antibiotics and biocides as antimicrobial medicaments in endodontics. Aust Dent J;52(1 Suppl):2007;S64–S82. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2007.tb00527.x.
  16. Estrela C, Estrela CR, Barbin EL, et al. Mechanism of action of sodium hypochlorite. Braz Dent J 2004;13(2):113–117. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402002000200007.
  17. Basrani B, Tjäderhane L, Santos JM, et al. Efficacy of chlorhexidine - and calcium hydroxide-containing medicaments against Enterococcus faecalis in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;96(5):618–624. DOI: 10.1016/s1079-2104(03)00166-5.
  18. White RR, Hays GL, Janer LR. Residual antimicrobial activity after canal irrigation with chlorhexidine. J Endod 1997;23(4):229–231. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80052-0.
  19. Moat AG, Foster JW, Spector MP. Microbial Stress Responses; Medical Physiology 2002;582–611. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/0471223867.ch18.
  20. Koch AL. Shrinkage of growing Escherichia coli cells by osmotic challenge. J Bacteriol 1984;159(3):919–924. DOI: 10.1128/jb.159.3.919-924.1984.
  21. Solheim M, La Rosa SL, Mathisen T, et al. Transcriptomic and functional analysis of NaCl-induced stress in Enterococcus faecalis. PLoS ONE 2014;9(4):e945–e971. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094571.
  22. Prado M, Santos Júnior HM, Rezende CM, et al. Interactions between irrigants commonly used in endodontic practice: a chemical analysis. J Endod 2013;39(4):505–510. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.050.
  23. Zilm PS, Butnejski V, Rossi-Fedele G, et al. D-amino acids reduce Enterococcus faecalis biofilms in vitro and in the presence of antimicrobials used for root canal treatment. PLoS One 2017;12(2):e0170670. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170670.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.