Premium
A comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy and flow properties for Epiphany, Guttaflow and AH‐Plus sealer
Author(s) -
Nawal R. R.,
Parande M.,
Sehgal R.,
Naik A.,
Rao N. R.
Publication year - 2011
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/j.1365-2591.2010.01829.x
Subject(s) - epiphany , enterococcus faecalis , agar , antimicrobial , root canal , agar plate , brain heart infusion , agar diffusion test , materials science , dentistry , microbiology and biotechnology , bacteria , medicine , antibacterial activity , biology , art , visual arts , genetics , staphylococcus aureus
Nawal RR, Parande M, Sehgal R, Naik A, Rao NR. A comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy and flow properties for Epiphany, Guttaflow and AH‐Plus sealer. International Endodontic Journal . Abstract Aim To test the antimicrobial efficacy and flow properties of Guttaflow, Epiphany sealer and AH‐Plus sealer. Methodology With the use of Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212 as a test organism, both the agar diffusion test (ADT) and direct contact test (DCT) were performed. For DCT, sealers were mixed and placed over the bottom of sterile screw‐capped test tubes. A 50μL bacterial suspension was placed on the tested material samples. Bacteria were allowed to directly come in contact with the sealers for 1 h at 37 °C in one group and for 24 h in the other group. The suspensions were then diluted and inoculated over blood agar plates, and bacterial colony counts were determined with the use of a digital colony counter. The data in both 1‐ and24‐h groups were individually analysed using repeated measures ANOVA. Kruskal Wallis tests were further used to obtain comparison between 1‐ and 24‐h results for all three sealers. In the flow assay, the sealers were placed between two glass slides, and a weight of 500 g was placed on the top of the glass. The diameters of the formed discs were recorded. Results For both the ADT and DCT tests, Epiphany and AH‐Plus sealer reduced the bacterial counts significantly ( P = 0.000). Epiphany produced a greater reduction in bacterial counts when compared to AH‐Plus in both the tests ( P = 0.000). Guttaflow paste failed to show any antibacterial activity in both ADT & DCT. According to the flow test, all root canal sealers flowed; Epiphany sealer had the maximum flow under the given conditions, followed by AH‐Plus sealer and Guttaflow paste. Conclusions Antimicrobial activity of the sealers was greatest for Epiphany followed by AH‐Plus sealer and Guttaflow. Epiphany sealer had the maximum flow followed by AH‐Plus sealer and Guttaflow.