Qasim Al-Hawezi Sazgar S, Perdawd Bnar A, Ali Lanja A, Hamasaeed Niaz H, Al Moaleem Mohammed M
Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Hawler Medical University, College of Dentistry, Erbil, IRQ.
Conservative Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, College of Dentistry, Erbil, IRQ.
Cureus. 2024 Sep 4;16(9):e68659. doi: 10.7759/cureus.68659. eCollection 2024 Sep.
Oral microflora containing microorganisms is responsible for the majority of orodental diseases as well as post-endodontic treatment failure. Even in the ideal root canal treatment cases, a small number of viable bacteria will remain in the dentinal tubule hence come the role of root canal sealers, which must offer and possess some degree of antimicrobial activity alongside adequate flowability to ensure excellent sealing of all lateral dentinal tubule canals to prevent the possibility of future reinfection. The present study aimed to examine the antibacterial efficacy against () using an agar diffusion test (ADT) at different time intervals, as well as the flow characteristics of three different root canal sealers: Endofill (Produits Dentaires SA,Vevey, Switzerland), AH Plus (Dentsply De Trey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany), and the newly introduced GuttaFlow2 (Coltène/Whaledent, Altstätten, Switzerland).
The antibacterial activity and flow characteristics of three root canal sealers, Endofill, AH Plus, and GuttaFlow2, were tested using ADT at three different time intervals (24 hours, 48 hours, and seven days). For this purpose, strains were used as the pathogen in this study. Flow characteristics were done using the standard flow test protocol recommended for endodontic sealers. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the Tukey post hoc test, with a p-value < 0.05 considered statistically significant.
The results for antibacterial activity showed a statistically significant difference between Endofill and the other groups (p < 0.05). The antibacterial activity of Endofill increased over time from 24 hours to 48 hours and seven days. AH Plus demonstrated antibacterial activity only within the first 24 hours of mixing, while GuttaFlow2 showed no inhibition zones against . Regarding the flow test results, the Endofill group recorded the lowest flow values compared to GuttaFlow2 and AH Plus, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between GuttaFlow2 and AH Plus for flow values.
Endofill demonstrated the highest antibacterial activity at all time intervals, while GuttaFlow2 showed no antimicrobial activity. AH Plus exhibited antimicrobial effects only within the first 24 hours of mixing. In terms of flow values, Endofill had the lowest flow, whereas GuttaFlow2 and AH Plus had the highest flow values.
含有微生物的口腔微生物群是大多数口腔疾病以及根管治疗后失败的原因。即使在理想的根管治疗病例中，仍会有少量活细菌残留在牙本质小管中，因此根管封闭剂就发挥了作用，它必须具备一定程度的抗菌活性以及足够的流动性，以确保良好地封闭所有侧支牙本质小管，防止未来再次感染的可能性。本研究旨在使用琼脂扩散试验（ADT）在不同时间间隔检测三种不同根管封闭剂：Endofill（瑞士韦威市Produits Dentaires SA公司）、AH Plus（德国康斯坦茨市Dentsply De Trey GmbH公司）和新推出的GuttaFlow2（瑞士阿尔特施泰滕市Coltène/Whaledent公司）对（）的抗菌效果以及流动特性。
使用ADT在三个不同时间间隔（24小时、48小时和7天）检测三种根管封闭剂Endofill、AH Plus和GuttaFlow2的抗菌活性和流动特性。为此，本研究使用（）菌株作为病原体。流动特性检测采用推荐用于牙髓封闭剂的标准流动试验方案。数据采用单因素方差分析和Tukey事后检验进行分析，p值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
抗菌活性结果显示Endofill与其他组之间存在统计学显著差异（p<0.05）。Endofill的抗菌活性随时间从24小时增加到48小时和7天。AH Plus仅在混合后的前24小时内表现出抗菌活性，而GuttaFlow2对（）未显示抑菌圈。关于流动试验结果，与GuttaFlow2和AH Plus相比，Endofill组记录的流动值最低，具有统计学显著性（p<0.05）。GuttaFlow2和AH Plus的流动值之间无统计学显著差异。
Endofill在所有时间间隔均表现出最高的抗菌活性，而GuttaFlow2未显示抗菌活性。AH Plus仅在混合后的前24小时内表现出抗菌作用。在流动值方面，Endofill的流动性最低，而GuttaFlow2和AH Plus的流动值最高。
