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 24 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of Antibacterial Effect of New Sealer “Neoseal” and Two Commercially Used Endodontic Sealers against Enterococcus faecalis: An In Vitro Study

Maria Rafaat Reslan

Keywords : Antibacterial, CeraSeal, Endodontic sealer, Modified direct contact test, Neoseal

Citation Information : Reslan MR. Evaluation of Antibacterial Effect of New Sealer “Neoseal” and Two Commercially Used Endodontic Sealers against Enterococcus faecalis: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (11):871-876.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3599

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 11-01-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the antibacterial activity of three endodontic sealing materials, Neoseal, CeraSeal, and AH Plus against Enterococcus faecalis bacteria in vitro. Materials and methods: The antibacterial activity of three endodontic sealing materials including two bioceramic sealers; NeoSEALER Flo (group I), CeraSeal (group II), and one epoxy resin sealer; AH Plus (group III) was investigated against E. faecalis bacteria American Type Cell Culture Collection (ATCC) 29212 (ATCC, Rockville, Maryland, USA). Using modified direct contact test (MDCT). The endodontic sealers were tested in contact with bacterial suspension when unset (20 minutes after mixing) and after setting, assessing the antibacterial activity of aged sealers after 1, 3, 7, and 14 days. Analyzing the collected data has been done with version 25.0 of the statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) IBM software (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois, USA). Descriptive analyses were calculated using standard deviation (SD) and mean. Shapiro–Wilk test was done to detect the normality of the result values. Kruskal–Wallis test was then performed to test the level of significance between groups. Results: After 20 minutes – Group I showed higher bacterial count mean values (5,500 ± 500) and 0 values for groups II and III groups. After 1 day, the highest bacterial count mean values were in group III (54,333.3 ± 4,041.5) and 0 values for groups I and II. After 3 days – group III again recorded the highest bacterial count mean values (45,000 ± 5,000) and 0 values for I and II groups. After 7 days – Group III still recorded the highest bacterial count mean values (53,333.3 ± 1,527.5) and 0 values for groups I and II. After 14 days – Group III recorded the highest bacterial count mean values (56,000 ± 1,000) followed by group II (6,333.3 ± 577.4), and the least was group I (2,000 ± 500). Kruskal–Wallis test showed significant values between groups in all tested durations, p > 0.05. Conclusion: The sealing material AH Plus showed a strong bactericidal effect at the beginning but lost its ability after 24 hours. CeraSeal showed strong bactericidal activity from the beginning till the end of the first week but showed bacterial count at 14 days. Neoseal took 24 hours to show bactericidal effect and similar to CeraSeal showed bacterial count at 14 days; CeraSeal recorded the best results within the study. Clinical significance: Silicate-based (bioceramic) endodontic sealers can be the best available endodontic sealing material that is clinically beneficial in removing residual microbes which had survived irrigation protocols and chemomechanical preparation.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Weiss EI, Shalhav M, Fuss Z. Assessment of antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers by a direct contact test. Endod Dent Traumatol 1996;12(4):179–184. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.1996.tb00511.x.
  2. Pandey P, Aggarwal H, Tikku AP, et al. Comparative evaluation of sealing ability of gutta percha and resilon as root canal filling materials: A systematic review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2020;10(2):220–226. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2019.12.004.
  3. Komabayashi T, Colmenar D, Cvach N, et al. Comprehensive review of current endodontic sealers. Dent Mater J 2020;39(5):703–720. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2019-288.
  4. Primus CM, Tay FR, Niu LN. Bioactive tri/dicalcium silicate cements for treatment of pulpal and periapical tissues. Acta Biomater 2019;96:35–54. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.05.050.
  5. Holt DM, Watts JD, Beeson TJ, et al. The anti-microbial effect against Enterococcus faecalis and the compressive strength of two types of mineral trioxide aggregate mixed with sterile water or 2% chlorhexidine liquid. J Endod 2007;33(7):844–847. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.04.006.
  6. Rehan A. Antibacterial activity of two calcium silicate-based root canal sealers against Enterococcus faecalis. Egypt Dent J 2019;65(3):2723–2730. DOI: 10.21608/edj.2019.72652.
  7. Castillo–Villagomez P, Madla–Cruz E, Lopez–Martinez F, et al. Antimicrobial effectiveness of root canal sealers against Enterococcus faecalis. Biomater Investig Dent 2022;9(1):47–51. DOI: 10.1080/26415275.2022.2071719.
  8. Kharouf N, Arntz Y, Eid A, et al. Physicochemical and antibacterial properties of novel, premixed calcium silicate-based sealer compared to powder–liquid bioceramic sealer. J Clin Med 2020;9(10):3096. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9103096.
  9. Elfaramawy MT, Hussein SA, Hamdi NAA. Anti-bacterial effect of different root canal sealer against newly introduced bio-ceramic sealer. Egypt Dent J 2022;68(1):981–984. DOI: 10.21608/edj.2021.97032.1794.
  10. Alghamdi F, Shakir M. The influence of Enterococcus faecalis as a dental root Canal pathogen on endodontic treatment: A systematic review. Cureus 2020;12(3):e7257. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.7257.
  11. Rosa M, Morozova Y, Moštěk R, et al. The short-term antibacterial activity of three selected endodontic sealers against Enterococcus faecalis bacterial Culture. Life (Basel) 2022;12(2):158. DOI: 10.3390/life12020158.
  12. Mangat P, Dhingra A, Muni S, et al. To compare and evaluate the antimicrobial activity of three different root canal sealers: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2020;23(6):571–576. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_610_20.
  13. Rathod RK, Taide PD, Dudhale RD. Assessment of antimicrobial efficacy of bioceramic sealer, epiphany self-etch sealer, and AH-Plus sealer against Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans: An in vitro study. Niger J Surg 2020;26(2):104–109. DOI: 10.4103/njs.NJS_60_19.
  14. Huang Y, Li X, Mandal P, et al. The in vitro antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers. BMC Oral Health 2019;19(1):118. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0817-2.
  15. Zhang H, Shen Y, Ruse ND, et al. Antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers by modified direct contact test against Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod 2009;35(7):1051–1055. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.04.022.
  16. Kapralos V, Koutroulis A, Ørstavik D, et al. Antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers against planktonic bacteria and bacteria in biofilms. J Endod 2018;44(1):149–154. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.08.023.
  17. Ruiz–Linares M, Baca P, Arias–Moliz MT, et al. Antibacterial and antibiofilm activity over time of GuttaFlow Bioseal and AH Plus. Dent Mater J 2019;38(5):701-706. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2018-090.
  18. Mak ST, Leong XF, Tew IM, et al. In vitro evaluation of the antibacterial activity of EndoSeal MTA, iRoot SP, and AH Plus against planktonic bacteria. Materials (Basel) 2022;15(6):2012. DOI: 10.3390/ma15062012.
  19. Munitic MS, Marijan S, Kero D, et al. Antibacterial efficacy of bioceramic root canal sealers against planktonic Enterococcus faecalis after different contact and setting time: An in vitro study. Saudi Endodontic J 2022;12(1):50–60. DOI: 10.4103/sej.sej_12_21.
  20. Kayaoglu G, Erten H, Alaçam T, et al. Short-term antibacterial activity of root canal sealers towards Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J 2005;38(7):483–488. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.00981.x.
  21. Slutzky–Goldberg I, Slutzky H, Solomonov M, et al. Antibacterial properties of four endodontic sealers. J Endod 2008;34(6):735–738. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.03.012.
  22. Leonardo MR, da Silva LAB, Filho MT, et al. Release of formaldehyde by 4 endodontic sealers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999;88(2):221–225. DOI: 10.1016/s1079-2104(99)70119-8.
  23. Schweikl H, Schmalz G. The induction of micronuclei in V79 cells by the root canal filling material AH plus. Biomaterials 2000;21(9): 939–944. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(99)00267-7.
  24. Roshdy N, AbdelWahed A, Elshishtawy H. Antimicrobial activity of AH Plus and Ceaseal sealers with and without the addition of silver nanoparticles against Enterococcus faecalis. Egypt Dent J 2021;67(3):2817–2823. DOI: 10.21608/EDJ.2021.75740.1627.
  25. Abduljabbar SM, Abumostafa A. Antimicrobial effect of different calcium silicate-based bioceramic endodontic sealers against Enterococcus faecalis: An in vitro study. Saudi J Oral Sci 2021;8(1): 48–52. DOI: 10.4103/sjos.SJOralSci_95_20.
  26. Candeiro GTM, Moura–Netto C, D'Almeida–Couto RS, et al. Cytotoxicity, genotoxicity and antibacterial effectiveness of a bioceramic endodontic sealer. Int Endod J 2016;49(9):858–864. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12523.
  27. Shin JH, Lee DY, Lee SH. Comparison of antimicrobial activity of traditional and new developed root sealers against pathogens related root canal. J Dent Sci 2018;13(1):54–59. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2017.10.007.
  28. Gomes–Filho JE, Watanabe S, Lodi CS, et al. Rat tissue reaction to MTA FILLAPEX®. Dent Traumatol 2012;28(6):452–456. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2011.01096.x.
  29. Singh G, Gupta I, Elshamy FMM, et al. In vitro comparison of antibacterial properties of bioceramic-based sealer, resin-based sealer and zinc oxide eugenol based sealer and two mineral trioxide aggregates. Eur J Dent 2016;10(3):366–369. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.184145.
  30. López–García S, Myong–Hyun B, Lozano A, et al. Cytocompatibility, bioactivity potential, and ion release of three premixed calcium silicate-based sealers. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24(5):1749–1759. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-03036-2.
  31. Zamparini F, Prati C, Taddei P, et al. Chemical–physical properties and bioactivity of new premixed calcium silicate-bioceramic root canal sealers. Int J Mol Sci 2022;23(22):13914. DOI: 10.3390/ijms232213914.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.