A comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy and flow characteristics of two epoxy resin-based sealers-AH plus and Perma Evolution: An in vitro study

6Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Aim of the Study: Bacteria that persist at the time of obturation increase the possibility of persistent apical periodontitis. An ideal sealer should be able to kill these remaining bacteria that are present on the dentinal walls as well as inside the dentinal tubules. This could be possible if a sealer has antimicrobial properties with optimum flow characteristics. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess the antimicrobial efficacy of epoxy resin-based sealer: AH Plus and Perma Evolution against Enterococcus faecalis on the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th day and also to compare the flow characteristics of both epoxy resin-based sealers. Materials and Methods: E. faecalis ATCC 35550 strain was used to assess the antibacterial efficacy of sealers by agar-diffusion test (ADT) and direct-contact test (DCT). Flow characteristics of sealers were measured according to the ADA specification no. 57. Results: In ADT, Perma Evolution sealer showed larger zone of inhibition than AH plus on the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th day, and in DCT, both sealers were equally effective in inhibiting E. faecalis growth on the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th day. Flow test showed no significant difference between Perma Evolution and AH Plus sealer. Conclusion: Both the tested sealers were equally effective against E. faecalis up to 7 days of incubation period. Considering flow properties, both the tested sealers showed optimum flow as per the ADA specification no. 57.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tiwari, S., Murthy, C. S., Usha, H. L., Shivekshith, A. K., Kumar, N. N., & Vijayalakshmi, L. (2018). A comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy and flow characteristics of two epoxy resin-based sealers-AH plus and Perma Evolution: An in vitro study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry, 21(6), 676–680. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_305_18

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free