Comparative evaluation of the antibacterial efficacy of two experimental calcium silicate‑based intracanal medicaments: An in‑vitro study

12Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Introduction: Success of endodontic treatment relies on minimizing microbial load by chemo‑mechanical preparation and intra‑ canal medication(ICM). Calcium hydroxide based ICMs have known disadvantages. Calcium silicate‑based cements(CSC) exhibit antibacterial activity, thus promoting researchers to experiment with their formulations to use them as ICMs. Aim: Evaluation and comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of two experimental CSC (MTA & Biodentine + 2%chlorhexidine) and Bio‑C Temp against E.faecalis. Methods and Material: Test materials were divided into four groups namely Group1‑Bio‑C Temp, Group2‑UltraCAL XS, Group3‑Biodentine+2%CHX and Group4‑MTA+2%CHX. Direct contact test was done by placing a standardized suspension of E.faecalis on test materials and bacterial growth was assessed spectrophotometrically using ELISA at one, three and seven days. Statistical Analysis: Data was analysed using one‑way ANOVA, Tukey’s multiple post hoc test and paired‑t test. Results: Intragroup comparison revealed decreased mean optical density(OD) in groups 1, 2, and 4; no significant difference in group 3. Intergroup comparison showed statistical differences in mean OD values between groups (3 and 4); groups (1 and 2) at days one(p‑0.018) and three(p‑0.035), but no difference individually. Group 4 showed the highest antimicrobial efficacy on day seven. Conclusion: MTA+2%CHX & Biodentine+2%CHX showed better antimicrobial efficacy and hence could be used as potential ICMs.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Patri, G., Bansal, S., Lath, H., Chatterjee, I., Majee, N., & Sinha, Y. (2024). Comparative evaluation of the antibacterial efficacy of two experimental calcium silicate‑based intracanal medicaments: An in‑vitro study. Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, 27(4), 419–423. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_74_24

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