Microbiological Evaluation of different irrigation protocols on root canal disinfection in teeth with apical periodontitis: An in Vivo study

9Citations
Citations of this article
83Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The present in vivo study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of apical negative pressure irrigation (ANP), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) and positive pressure irrigation (PP) in the reduction of intracanal bacteria of dogs' teeth with pulp necrosis and apical periodontitis. Eighty root canals were randomly distributed into 3 experimental and 2 control groups according to the irrigation delivery system: group ANP (n=20), group PUI (n=20), group PP (n=20), group PC (positive control - sterile saline irrigation; n=10) and group NC (negative control - vital pulps not subjected to bacterial inoculation; n=10). The first sample (S1) was collected at baseline, and the second sample (S2) was collected after the disinfection protocols. All samples were seeded in culture media for anaerobic bacteria. CFU counts were analyzed statistically by the Kruskal-Wallis, Dwass-Steel- Critchlow-Fligner post-hoc and Chi-square followed by Tukey like multiple comparisons for proportions (α=0.05). All experimental groups were effective in reducing Gram-positive bacteria compared with PC (p<0.05). Regarding the reduction of Gram-negative bacteria, group ANP was significantly better than PP (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference could be found between PP and PUI (p>0.05). In dog's teeth with apical periodontitis, the use of ANP and PUI can be considered promising disinfection protocols as both delivery systems promoted a significant bacterial reduction.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cohenca, N., Silva, L. A. B., Silva, R. A. B., Nelson-Filho, P., Heilborn, C., Watanabe, E., & Saraiva, M. C. P. (2013). Microbiological Evaluation of different irrigation protocols on root canal disinfection in teeth with apical periodontitis: An in Vivo study. Brazilian Dental Journal, 24(5), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201302179

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