Premium
The dentine‐sealer interface: Modulation of antimicrobial effects by irrigation
Author(s) -
Kapralos Vasileios,
Valen Håkon,
Koutroulis Andreas,
Camilleri Josette,
Ørstavik Dag,
Sunde Pia Titterud
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
international endodontic journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.988
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1365-2591
pISSN - 0143-2885
DOI - 10.1111/iej.13692
Subject(s) - sodium hypochlorite , chlorhexidine , root canal , dentistry , enterococcus faecalis , smear layer , materials science , gutta percha , endodontics , chemistry , biofilm , saline , medicine , bacteria , biology , biochemistry , organic chemistry , escherichia coli , gene , endocrinology , genetics
Abstract Aim Assess whether sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) or chlorhexidine (CHX) and two irrigation protocols may alter the antibacterial properties of dentine and three endodontic sealers using a novel ex vivo tooth model. Methodology Prior to antibacterial testing, the tooth model was validated by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to evaluate the separation between dentine and sealer surfaces. Root blocks prepared from extracted human roots were pre‐treated with 17% EDTA + 0.9% saline and subsequently treated with 1% NaOCl (G1), 2% CHX (G2) or no irrigant (G3). Two irrigation protocols were further investigated, “1% NaOCl + 17% EDTA” (P1) and “1% NaOCl + 17% EDTA + 2% CHX” (P2). Following irrigation, the root blocks were either filled with AH Plus, BioRoot RCS and Pulp Canal Sealer (PCS), or left empty. All groups were incubated for 1, 7 and 28 days. Direct contact tests for planktonic E . faecalis and 48 h E . faecalis biofilms were performed at the level of dentine and sealer surfaces. Statistical analysis was performed on the bacterial survival between irrigants (G1, G2 and G3) and between irrigation protocols (P1 and P2); p < .05. Results The model was considered reproducible as SEM examination of dentine samples indicated consistent separation between dentine and sealer surfaces. Irrigation with CHX (G2) and irrigation protocol P2 enhanced the antibacterial properties of dentine without sealer application as well as dentine in contact with all three sealers tested, especially against planktonic E . faecalis . G2 and P2 also improved the antibacterial effect of AH Plus surfaces for all three incubation times. No irrigation groups (G1, G2) or irrigation protocols (P1, P2) altered the antibacterial properties of BioRoot RCS surfaces against planktonic bacteria or biofilms. Only BioRoot RCS surfaces eliminated the planktonic E . faecalis in all irrigation groups (G1, G2, G3) and protocols (P1, P2) investigated whilst PCS surfaces eliminate E . faecalis in biofilms in all groups up to 7 days. Conclusions The tooth model was reproducible. CHX improved the antibacterial activity upon both sealer and dentine surfaces. Amongst sealers, BioRoot RCS was less affected by NaOCl and CHX, and exhibited high antibacterial properties regardless the irrigation applied.