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 9 ( September, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Antimicrobial Activity of Five Calcium Silicate Based Root Canal Sealers against a Multispecies Engineered Biofilm: An In Vitro Study

Wajih Hage, Dolla Karam Sarkis, Mireille Kallasy, Germain Sfeir, May Mallah, Roula El Hachem, Issam Khalil, Carla Zogheib

Keywords : Biofilm, Bioceramics, calcium silicate based root canal sealers, Multispecies’ biofilm

Citation Information : Hage W, Sarkis DK, Kallasy M, Sfeir G, Mallah M, El Hachem R, Khalil I, Zogheib C. Antimicrobial Activity of Five Calcium Silicate Based Root Canal Sealers against a Multispecies Engineered Biofilm: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (9):707-714.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3556

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-10-2023

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


Abstract

Aim: The present study's objective was to compare the impact of CerasealR, total fill BC SealerR, Bio-C SealerR, AH Plus BioceramicR, and K-BiocerR on the elimination of a multispecies’ endodontic biofilm at 3, 7 and 14 days. Materials and methods: A total of 20 freshly extracted, caries-free premolars were prepared for the study to create dentinal disks. For the multispecies biofilm formation, Enterococcus faecalis, Proteus mirabilis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Candida albicans were cultured and used to inoculate hydroxyapatite discs. After incubation, the biofilms were placed on blotting papers in petri dishes with an orthodontic bend. Different root canal sealers, including CeraSeal, total Fill BC Sealer, Bio-C Sealer, AH Plus Bioceramic, K-Biocer, and Sealite, were injected into the bend, facilitating contact with the biofilms. The samples were divided into seven groups, including a negative control. At specific intervals, 3, 7, and 14 days, 3 biofilm samples from each group were collected, diluted, and plated on Agar media for colony counting and analysis. Results: In all tested groups, the total bacterial count significantly decreased between day 3 and 14 (p < 0.05) with no statistically significant differences among the different sealers’ groups at all-time points for the total bacterial count, E. faecalis count, and P. mirabilis count. However, Sealite demonstrated the most consistent effectiveness in reducing bacterial counts across multiple categories. The sealite group was capable of decreasing the C. albicans count significantly between day 3 and day 14 (p < 0.05) in comparison with the bioceramic groups. Conclusion: All sealers had antibacterial activity against the multispecies biofilm between day 3 and day 14. The ascending order of sealers in terms of their effectiveness in killing bacteria, based on the provided results, is as follows: Sealite, Bio-C Sealer, AH Plus, CeraSeal, TotalFill, and K-Biocer. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the bacterial counts among the different sealer groups at any time point. Clinical significance: The role of sealers in combating biofilm-associated infections highlights their potential clinical utility in preserving root canal health. Understanding the antimicrobial properties of these sealers is vital for informed decision-making in selecting the most effective materials for improved treatment outcomes and long-term success in endodontic procedures.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Byström A, Sundqvist G. Bacteriologic evaluation of the effect of 0.5 percent sodium hypochlorite in endodontic therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1983;55(3):307–312. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(83)90333-X.
  2. Waltimo T, Trope M, Haapasalo M, et al. Clinical efficacy of treatment procedures in endodontic infection control and one year follow-up of periapical healing. J Endod 2005;31(12):863–866. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000164856.27920.85.
  3. Duggan JM, Sedgley CM. Biofilm formation of oral and endodontic Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod 2007;33(7):815–818. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.02.016.
  4. Swimberghe RCD, Coenye TRJ, De Moor G, et al. Biofilm model systems for root canal disinfection: A literature review. Int Endod J 2019;52(5):604–628. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13050.
  5. Camilleri J. Will bioceramics be the future root canal filling materials? Curr Oral Health Rep 2017;4:228–238. DOI: 10.1007/s40496-017-0147-x.
  6. Camps J, Jeanneau C, El Ayachi I, et al. Bioactivity of a calcium silicate–based endodontic cement (Bio Root RCS): Interactions with human periodontal ligament cells in vitro. J Endod 2015;41(9):1469–1473. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.04.011.
  7. Silva Almeida LH, Moraes RR, Morgental RD, et al. Are premixed calcium silicate–based endodontic sealers comparable to conventional materials? A systematic review of in vitro studies. J Endod 2017;43(4):527–535. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.11.019.
  8. Lim M, Jung C, Shin DH, et al. Calcium silicate-based root canal sealers: A literature review. Restor Dent Endod 2020;45(3):e35. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e35.
  9. Zordan-Bronzel CL, Tanomaru-Filho M, Rodrigues EM, et al. Cytocompatibility, bioactive potential and antimicrobial activity of an experimental calcium silicate-based endodontic sealer. Int Endod J 2019;52(7):979–986. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13086.
  10. Urban K, Neuhaus J, Donnermeyer D, et al. Solubility and pH value of 3 different root canal sealers: A long-term investigation. J Endod 2018;44(11):1736–1740. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.07.026.
  11. Candeiro GT, Correia FC, Duarte MA, et al. Evaluation of radiopacity, pH, release of calcium ions, and flow of a bioceramic root canal sealer. J Endod 2012;38(6):842–845. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012. 02.029.
  12. Hage W, De Moor RJG, Hajj D, et al. Impact of different irrigant agitation methods on bacterial elimination from infected root canals. Dent J 2019;7:64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7030064.
  13. Kapralos V, Koutroulis A, Ørstavik D, et al. Antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers against planktonic bacteria and bacteria in biofilms. J Endod 2018;44(11):149–154. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.08.023.
  14. Siqueira JF Jr, Rôças IN. Present status and future directions: Microbiology of endodontic infections. Int Endod J 2021;55(Suppl 3):512–530. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13677.
  15. Garg A, Mala K, Kamath PM. Biofilm models in endodontics – A narrative review. J Conserv Dent 2021;24(1):2–9. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_621_20.
  16. Jhajharia K, Parolia A, Shetty KV, et al. Biofilm in endodontics: A review. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2015;5(1):1–2. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0762.151956.
  17. 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.
  18. Colaco AS. Extreme resistance of Enterococcus faecalis and its role in endodontic treatment failure. Prog Med Sci 2018;2(1):9–13. DOI: doi.org/10.47363/PMS/2018(2)109.
  19. Sfeir G, Zogheib C, Patel S, et al. Calcium silicate-based root canal sealers: A narrative review and clinical perspectives. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(14):3965. DOI: 10.3390/ma14143965.
  20. Bukhari S, Karabucak B. The antimicrobial effect of bioceramic sealer on an 8-week matured enterococcus faecalis biofilm attached to root canal dentinal surface. J Endod 2019;45(8):1047–1052. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.04.004.
  21. Šimundić Munitić M, Poklepović Peričić T, Utrobičić A, et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of commercially available endodontic bioceramic root canal sealers: A systematic review. PLoS One 2019;14(10):e0223575. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223575.
  22. Šimundić Munitić M, Budimir A, Jakovljević S, et al. Short-Term antibacterial efficacy of three bioceramic root canal sealers against enterococcus faecalis biofilms. Acta Stomatol Croat 2020;54(1):3–9. DOI: 10.15644/asc54/1/1.
  23. Wang Z, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. Antimicrobial and antibiofilm properties of bioceramic materials in endodontics. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(24):7594. DOI: 10.3390/ma14247594.
  24. Zhang H, Shen Y, Ruse ND. 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.
  25. de Souza LC, Neves GS, Kirkpatrick T, et al. Physicochemical and biological properties of AH Plus bioceramic. Journal of Endodontics 2023;49(1):69–76. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2022.10.009.
  26. 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. Journal of Clinical Medicine 2020;9(10):3096. DOI: 10.3390/jcm9103096.
  27. Harini Priya M, Bhat SS, Sandeep Hegde K. Comparative evaluation of bactericidal potential of four root canal filling material against microflora of infected non-vital primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2010;35(1):23–29. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.35.1.u57p4500360g 2752.
  28. Saha S, Samadi F, Jaiswal JN, et al. Antimicrobial activity of different endodontic sealers: An in vitro evaluation. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2010;28(4):251–257. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.76151.
  29. Jerez Olate C, Araya N, Alcántara R, et al. In vitro antibacterial activity of endodontic bioceramic materials against dual and multispecies aerobic anaerobic biofilm models. Aust Endod J 2022;48(3):465–472. DOI: 10.1111/aej.12587.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.