English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Debridement of root canal using appropriately safe and effective irrigants is the key factor for long-term success. Purpose of this study was to compare the antibacterial effect of propolis with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite, and 2% chlorhexidine against enterococcus faecalis. Materials &Methods: In this study, 36 single-canal roots were used. The crown was removed and instrumentation was prepared by step-back technique, then teeth were sterilized and contaminated with E. Faecalis, and divided into four groups with 9 cases: group1: Propolis, group2: 5.25% sodium hypochlorite, group3: 2% chlorhexidine and group4: controls. Irrigants were injected by a 27-gauge syringe and roots were incubated in 37°C for one week. Sampling was done and inoculated to tryptone soy broth media, after 24 hours the turbidity was measured. Samples were also cultured on agar plates, and colony-forming units were counted as CFU/ml. Data were analysed using the Mann-Whitney test. Results: The difference between propolis with mean value of 246.77 colonies and chlorhexidine with mean value of zero colonies, was significant (P=.002). Similarly, the difference between chlorhexidine and sodium hypochlorite with mean value 203.55 of colonies was significant and they had significant difference in turbidity (P=.002), too. No significant difference was observed between propolis and sodium hypochlorite with regard to the induced colonies (P=0.781) and their turbidity (P=0.495). Conclusion: It can be concluded that antibacterial activity of 2% chlorhexidine against E. faecalis is more obvious than propolis or 5.25% sodium hypochlorite. But antibacterial activity of propolis over 5.25% sodium hypochlorite or vice versa was not confirmed.

THE COMPARISON OF ANTIBACTERIAL EFFECT OF PROPOLIS , SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 5.25%, AND CHLORHEXIDINE 2% AS INTRACANAL IRRIGANTS AGAINST ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS: AN EX VIVO STUDY