Ferk Suzana, Simeon Paris, Mehicić Goranka Prpić, Kalenić Smilja, Anić Ivica, Jukić Silvana
Zavod za endodonciju i restaurativnu stomatolqgiju, Stomatoloski fakultet Sveucilista u Zagrebu, Hrvatska.
Med Glas (Zenica). 2011 Feb;8(1):46-52.
To assess antimicrobial effects of the materials used in the endodontic treatment of the teeth.
The following root-canal fillings were examined: Ketac Endo, AH Plus, Diaket, and gutta-percha, by means of the agar diffusion test. As for the base materials, Zink Oxide/Eugenol cement, glass-ionomere cements Fuji II LC Improved, Ketac Cem, and phosphate cement and Harvard cement were investigated. Finally, of the materials for final cavity filling, amalgam, Ketac Molar and Fuji II LC Improved were tested. In the present research, the following bacteria were applied: Streptococcus mutans, Streptotoccus mitis, Lactobacillus species, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcusfaecalis, and polymicrobial suspention. For each individual bacterium tested, material samples were placed on the inoculated plates of blood-agar.
Antibacterial effects were confirmed in the following materials: root-canal fillings--Diaket, AH Plus, Ketac Endo; bases--Zink Oxide/Eugenol cement, phosphat cement and Harvard cement. No antibacterial effect was established in: amalgam, gutta-percha, Fuji II LC Improved, Ketac Cem and Ketac Molar. Diaket showed a statistically more significant antibacterial effect in comparison with AH Plus, Ketac Endo, and gutta-percha (P(s.mitis) < 0.05; P(s.mutans) < 0.05; p(lactobacillus) < 0.05; p(enterococcus) < 0.05; P(staphilococcus) < 0.05; p(polymicrobial) < 0.05); of the base materials, however, a somewhat stronger antimicrobial effect was found in phosphate cement, Harvard cement, and Zink Oxide/Eugenol (ZnOE) (p < 0.05) as compared with Fuji II LC Improved and Ketac Cem.
According to the results of this study, and considering the fact that all cavity-filling materials failed to show any antimicrobial effect at all, when choosing the materials for root-canal fillings, and for bases, advantage should be given to those with the manifested strongest antibacterial effect, namely Diaket and phosphate cement.
评估用于牙齿根管治疗的材料的抗菌效果。
通过琼脂扩散试验对以下根管充填材料进行检测：Ketac Endo、AH Plus、Diaket和牙胶；对于垫底材料，研究了氧化锌/丁香酚水门汀、玻璃离子水门汀Fuji II LC改进型、Ketac Cem、磷酸锌水门汀和哈佛水门汀；最后，对用于窝洞最终充填的材料，测试了银汞合金、Ketac Molar和Fuji II LC改进型。在本研究中，应用了以下细菌：变形链球菌、缓症链球菌、乳杆菌属、金黄色葡萄球菌、粪肠球菌和混合菌悬液。对于每种测试的细菌，将材料样本置于接种了血琼脂的平板上。
在以下材料中证实有抗菌效果：根管充填材料——Diaket、AH Plus、Ketac Endo；垫底材料——氧化锌/丁香酚水门汀、磷酸锌水门汀和哈佛水门汀。在以下材料中未发现抗菌效果：银汞合金、牙胶、Fuji II LC改进型、Ketac Cem和Ketac Molar。与AH Plus、Ketac Endo和牙胶相比，Diaket显示出统计学上更显著的抗菌效果（P(缓症链球菌)<0.05；P(变形链球菌)<0.05；P(乳杆菌)<0.05；P(肠球菌)<0.05；P(葡萄球菌)<0.05；P(混合菌)<0.05）；然而，在垫底材料中，与Fuji II LC改进型和Ketac Cem相比，在磷酸锌水门汀、哈佛水门汀和氧化锌/丁香酚（ZnOE）中发现了稍强的抗菌效果（P<0.05）。
根据本研究结果，并考虑到所有窝洞充填材料均未显示出任何抗菌效果这一事实，在选择根管充填材料和垫底材料时，应优先选择具有最强抗菌效果的材料，即Diaket和磷酸锌水门汀。
