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 20 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of the Antibacterial Efficiency of a Combination of 1% Alexidine and Sodium Hypochlorite on Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm Models: An In Vitro Study

Anchu R Thomas, Tripuravaram VK Reddy, Ashwin Ravichandran, Murali Sivakumar, Shobana Krishnakumar

Keywords : Alexidine, Biofilm, Confocal laser scanning microscope, Enterococcus faecalis

Citation Information : Thomas AR, Reddy TV, Ravichandran A, Sivakumar M, Krishnakumar S. Evaluation of the Antibacterial Efficiency of a Combination of 1% Alexidine and Sodium Hypochlorite on Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm Models: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (9):1090-1094.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2640

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim of the study was to assess the antibacterial efficiency of a combination of 1% alexidine (ALX) and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) against E. faecalis biofilm using a confocal scanning electron microscopy. Materials and methods: An estimated 120 human root dentin disks were prepared, sterilized, and inoculated with E. faecalis strain (ATCC 29212) to develop a 3-weeks-old biofilm. The dentin discs were exposed to group I—control group: 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (n = 20); group II—1% ALX + 5.25% NaOCl (n = 40); group III—1% alexidine (ALX) (n = 40) (Sigma-Aldrich, Mumbai, India); group IV—negative control: saline (n = 20). After exposure, the dentin disks were stained with the fluorescent live/dead dye and evaluated with a confocal scanning electron microscope to calculate the proportion of dead cells. Statistical analysis was done using the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U test (p < 0.05). Results: The maximum proportion of dead cells were seen in the groups treated with the combination of 1% ALX + 5.25% NaOCl (94.89%) and in the control group 5.25% NaOCl (93.14%). The proportion of dead cells presented in the 1% ALX group (51.79%) and negative control group saline (15.10%) were comparatively less. Conclusion: The antibacterial efficiency of a combination of 1% ALX and 5.25% NaOCl was more effective when compared with 1% ALX alone. Clinical significance: Alexidine at 1% could be used as an alternative endodontic irrigant to chlorhexidine, as alexidine does not form any toxic precipitates with sodium hypochlorite. The disinfection regimen comprising a combination of 1% ALX and 5.25% NaOCl is effective in eliminating E. faecalis biofilms.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Haapasalo M, Endal U, et al. Eradication of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation solutions. Endod Top 2005;10:77–102. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00135.x.
  2. Sjogren U, Figdor D, 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: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1997.tb00714.x.
  3. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod 2006;32:389–398. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.09.014.
  4. Sirén EK, Haapasalo MPP, et al. Microbiological findingsand clinical treatment procedures in endodontic cases selected for microbiologicalinvestigation. Int Endod J 1997;30:90–95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1997.tb00680.x.
  5. Stuart CH, Schwartz SA, et al. Enterococcus faecalis: its role in root canal treatment failure and current concepts in retreatment. J Endod 2005;32:93–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.049.
  6. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004;30:559–567. DOI: 10.1097/01.DON.0000129039.59003.9D.
  7. Orstavik D, Haapasalo M. Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and dressings of experimentally infected dentinal tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990;6:142–149. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.1990.tb00409.x.
  8. Kuruvilla JR, Kamath MP. Antimicrobial activity of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite and 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate separately and combined, as endodontic irrigants. J Endod 1998;24:472–476. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80049-6.
  9. Ohara P, Torabinejad M, et al. Antibacterial effects of various endodontic irrigants on selected anaerobic bacteria. Endod Dent Traumatol 1993;9:95–100. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.1993.tb00258.x.
  10. White RR, Hays GL, et al. Residual antimicrobial activity after canal irrigation with chlorhexidine. J Endod 1997;23:229–231. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80052-0.
  11. Jeansonne MJ, White RR. A comparison of 2.0% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite as antimicrobial endodontic irrigants. J Endod 1994;20:276–278. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80815-0.
  12. Ferguson JW, Hatton JF, et al. Effectiveness of intracanal irrigants and medicationsagainst the yeast Candida albicans. J Endod 2002;28: 68–71. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200202000-00004.
  13. Bui T, Baumgartner C, et al. Evaluation of the interaction between sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate and its effect on root dentin. J Endod 2008;34:181–185. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.11.006.
  14. Krishnamurthy S, Sudhakaran S. Evaluation and prevention of the precipitate formed on interaction between sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine. J Endod 2010;36:1154–1157. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.01.012.
  15. Zorko M, Jerala R. Alexidine and chlorhexidine bind to lipopolysaccharide and lipoteichoic acid and prevent cell activation by antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;62:730–737. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkn270.
  16. McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 1999;12:147–179. DOI: 10.1128/CMR.12.1.147.
  17. Roberts WR, Addy M. Comparison of the bisbiguanide antiseptics alexidine and chlorhexidine: I. Effect on plaque accumulation and salivary bacteria. J Clin Periodontol 1981;8:213–219. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1981.tb02032.x.
  18. Yanai R, Ueda K, et al. Effects of tonicity-adjusting and surfactant agents on the antimicrobial activity of alexidine. Eye Contact Lens 2011;37:57–60. DOI: 10.1097/ICL.0b013e31820ca361.
  19. Kim HS, Zhu Q, et al. Chemical Interaction of Alexidine and Sodium Hypochlorite. J Endod 2012;38:112–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.10.003.
  20. Sena NT, Gomes BPFA, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine against selected single-species biofilms. Int Endod J 2006;39:878–885. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01161.x.
  21. Liu H, Wei X, et al. Biofilm formation capability of Enterococcus faecalis cells in starvation phase and its susceptibility to sodium hypochlorite. J Endod 2010;4:630–635. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.11.016.
  22. Santos RP, Arruda TTP, et al. Correlation between Enterococcus faecalis biofilms development stage and quantitative surface roughness using atomic force microscopy. Microsc Microanal 2008;14:150–158. DOI: 10.1017/S1431927608080227.
  23. Shen Y, Stojicic S, et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine against bacteria in biofilms at different stages of development. J Endod 2011;37:657–661. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.02.007.
  24. Bhuva B, Patel S, et al. The effectiveness of passive ultrasonic irrigation on intraradicular Enterococcus faecalis biofilms in extracted single-rooted human teeth. Int Endod J 2010;43:241–250. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01672.x.
  25. Svensäter G, Bergenholtz G. Biofilms in endodontic infections. Endod Topics 2004;9:27–36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2004.00112.x.
  26. Williamson AE, Cardon JW, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility of monocultures biofilms of a clinical isolate of Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod 2009;35:95–97. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.09.004.
  27. McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 2001;14:227.
  28. Varadan P, Ganesh A, et al. Comparison of the Antibacterial Efficacy of Alexidine and Chlorhexidine Against Enterococcus Faecalis: An In Vitro Study. Cureus 2017;9(10): e1805. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.1805.
  29. Kim HS, Woo Chang S, et al. Antimicrobial effect of alexidine and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis infection. Int J Oral Sci 2013;5:26–31. DOI: 10.1038/ijos.2013.11.
  30. Zorko M, Jerala R. Alexidine and chlorhexidine bind to lipopolysaccharide andlipoteichoic acid and prevent cell activation by antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;62:730–737. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkn270.
  31. Roberts WR, Addy M. Comparison of the bisbiguanide antiseptics alexidine and chlorhexidine: I. Effect on plaque accumulation and salivary bacteria. J Clin Periodontol 1981;8:213–219. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1981.tb02032.x.
  32. Barrios R, Ferrer-Luque CM, et al. Antimicrobial Substantivity of Alexidine and Chlorhexidine in Dentin. J Endod 2013;39:1413–1415. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.07.038.
  33. Jain K, Agarwal P, et al. Alexidine vs chlorhexidine for endodontic irrigation with sodium hypochlorite. Eur J Dent 2018;12:398. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_180_17.
  34. Du T, Wang Z, et al. Effect of long-term exposure to endodontic disinfecting solutions on young and old Enterococcus faecalis biofilms in dentin canals. J Endod 2014;40:509–514. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.11.026.
  35. Wang Z, Shen Y, et al. Effectiveness of endodontic disinfecting solutions against young and old Enterococcus faecalis biofilms in dentin canals. J Endod 2012;38:1376–1379. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.06.035.
  36. Bukhary S, Balto H. Antibacterial Efficacy of Octenisept, Alexidine, Chlorhexidine, and Sodium Hypochlorite against Enterococcus faecalis Biofilms. J Endod 2017;43:643–647. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.09.013.
  37. Varadan P, Ganesh A, et al. Comparison of the Antibacterial Efficacy of Alexidine and Chlorhexidine Against Enterococcus Faecalis: An in vitro Study. Cureus 2017;9(10):e1805. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.1805.
  38. Zapata RO, Bramante CM, et al. Confocal laser scanning electron microscopy is appropriate to detect viability of Enterococcus faecalis in infected dentin. J Endod 2008;34:1198–1201. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.07.001.
  39. Hubble TS, Hatton JF, et al. Influence of Enterococcus faecalis proteases and the collagen binding protein, Ace on adhesion to dentin. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2003;18:121–126. DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-302X.2003.00059.x.
  40. Arias- Moliz MT, Ferrer-Luque CM, et al. Enterococcus faecalis biofilms eradication by root canal irrigants. J Endod 2009;35:711–714. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.01.018.
  41. Swimberghe RCD, Coeyne T, et al. Biofilm model systems for root canal disinfection: a literature review. Int Endod J 2018;52:604–628. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13050.
  42. Watson TF. Fact and artefact in confocal microscopy. Adv Dent Res 1997;11:433–441. DOI: 10.1177/08959374970110040901.
  43. Tan CH, Lee KW, et al. All together now: experimental multispecies biofilm model systems. Environ Microbiol 2017;19:42–53. DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.13594.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.