Young Hun Kim; Min-Kyung Kang; Eun-Kyoung Choi; So-Young Yang; Inseok Yang; In-Chol Kang; Yun-Chan Hwang; In-Nam Hwang; Won-Mann Oh

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2009.34.6.500

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 34(6); 2009 > Article

Original Article Comparison of Antibacterial effect of Listerine® with Various root canal irrigants: Young Hun Kim¹, Min-Kyung Kang¹, Eun-Kyoung Choi², So-Young Yang^3,5, Inseok Yang⁶, In-Chol Kang^2,4,5, Yun-Chan Hwang^1,4,5, In-Nam Hwang^1,4, Won-Mann Oh^1,4,5; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2009;34(6):500-507.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2009.34.6.500
Published online: November 30, 2009

¹Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Korea.

²Department of Oral Microbiology, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Korea.

³Department of Oral Anatomy, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Korea.

⁴DSRI, Chonnam National University, Korea.

⁵²ⁿd stage of BK21, Chonnam National University, Korea.

⁶Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Won-Mann Oh. Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National Universtiy, Yongbong-ro 77, Buk-ku, Gwangju 500-757, Korea. Tel: 82-62-530-5572, Fax: 82-62-530-5629, wmoh@chonnam.ac.kr

• Received: September 4, 2009 • Revised: October 6, 2009 • Accepted: October 16, 2009

20 Views
0 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare the antibacterial effect of Listerine® on two microorganisms (P. gingivalis and E. faecalis) with various root canal irrigants (NaOCl, CHX, EDTA) and to identify possibility of using Listerine® as a root canal irrigant. Porphyromonas gingivalis ATCC 3327 and Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212 were used in this experiment. For the test irrigants, 0.5%, 1%, 2.5%, 5.25% NaOCl, 0.1%, 0.2%, 1%, 2% CHX, 0.5M EDTA (18.6% EDTA) and Listerine® were prepared. Distiled water was used as control. Two methods-1) Comparison of turbidity in broth and 2) Agar diffusion test-were used to determine the extent of antibacterial effect of Listerine® and to compare it with that of NaOCl, CHX, and EDTA. All solutions tested were effective against two bacterial strains compared with control (p<0.001). Any concentration of NaOCl, CHX, and EDTA showed similarly high effectiveness against all bacterial strains. In all experiment, Listerine® showed significantly low antibacterial effect compared with the other root canal irrigants (p<0.05).

In conclusion, the results reflect remarkably low antibacterial effect of Listerine® as compared with root canal irrigants in general so it is not suitable for the root canal irrigant.
Keywords: Root canal irrigant; Antibacterial effect; Essential oil; Listerine®

REFERENCES

1. Gentil M, Pereira JV, Sousa YT, Pietro R, Neto MD, Vansan LP, de Castro França S. In vitro evaluation of the antibacterial activity of Arctium lappa as a phytotherapeutic agent used in intracanal dressings. Phytother Res. 2006;20: 184-186.Article PubMed
2. Carson KR, Goodell GG, McClanahan SB. Comparison of the antimicrobial activity of six irrigants on primary endodontic pathogens. J Endod. 2005;31: 471-473.Article PubMed
3. Murray PE, Farber RM, Namerow KN, Kuttler S, Garcia-Godoy F. Evaluation of Morinda citrfolia as an Endodontic Irrigant. J Endod. 2008;34: 66-70.PubMed
4. Kim HJ, Park SH, Cho KM, Kim JW. Evaluation of time-dependent antimicrobial effect of sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC) on Enterococcus faecalis in the root canal. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2007;32: 121-129.
5. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod. 2006;32: 389-398.Article PubMed
6. Seymour R. Additional properties and Used of essential oils. J Clin Periodontol. 2003;30: suppl.5. 19-21.
7. Torabinejad M, Shabahang S, Aprecio RM, Kettering JD. The antimicrobial effect of MTAD: an in vitro investigation. J Endod. 2003;29: 400-403.Article PubMed
8. Siqueira JF Jr, Batista MM, Fraga RC, de Uzeda M. Antibacterial effects of endodontic irrigants on black-pigmented Gram-negative anaerobes and facultative bacteria. J Endod. 1998;24: 414-416.PubMed
9. Sundqvist G, Figdor D, Persson S, Sjögren U. Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative retreatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998;85: 86-93.Article PubMed
10. Shin JH, Park SJ, Choi KW. Antibacterial Effect of Polyphosphate on Endodontopathic Bacteria. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2003;28: 435-448.Article
11. Dakin HD. On the use of certain antiseptic substances in treatment of infected wounds. Br Med J. 1915;2: 318-320.PubMed PMC
12. Bystrom A, Sundqvist G. Bacteriological evaluation of the effect of 0.5% sodium hypochlorite in endodontic therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1983;55: 307-312.PubMed
13. D'Arcangelo C, Varvara G, De Fazio P. An evaluation of the action of different root canal irrigants on facultative aerobic-anaerobic, obligate anaerobic, and microaerophilic bacteria. J Endod. 1999;25: 351-353.Article PubMed
14. Shin JS, Cho YB. Removal Patterns of Smear Layer According to Application Temperature and Time of EDTA. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2002;27: 535-542.Article
15. Zehnder M, Schmidlin P, Sener B, Waltimo T. Chelation in root canal therapy reconsidered. J Endod. 2005;31: 817-820.Article PubMed
16. Masillamoni CR, Kettering JD, Torabinejad M. The biocompatibility of some root canal medicaments and irrigants. Int Endod J. 1981;14: 115-120.PubMed
17. Georgopoulou M, Kontakiotis E, Nakou M. Evaluation of the antimicrobial effectiveness of citric acid and sodium hypochlorite on the anaerobic flora of the infected root canal. Int Endod J. 1994;27: 139-143.Article PubMed
18. Takarada K, Kimizuka R, Takahashi N, Honma K, Okuda K, Kato T. A comparison of the antibacterial efficacies of essential oils against oral pathogens. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 2004;19: 61-64.Article PubMed

Figure 1

Comparison of bacterial turbidity in broth at 630nm wave length after 48hours culture.

A. Turbidity of E. faecalis at 630 nm

B. Turbidity of P. gingivalis at 630 nm

-C0.1: 0.1% CHX, C0.2: 0.2% CHX, C1: 1% CHX, C2: 2% CHX, N0.5: 0.5% NaOCl, N1: 1% NaOCl, N2.5: 2.5% NaOCl, N5.25: 5.25% NaOCl, DW: Distilled water(Control)

^**: Statistical significance (p<0.001)

^*: Statistical significance (p<0.05)

Figure 2

Comparison of agar diffusion test after 48hours culture (Averages of zones of inhibition)(mm).

A. Diameter of inhibition zone of E. faecalis

B. Diameter of inhibition zone of P. gingivalis

-C0.1: 0.1% CHX, C0.2: 0.2% CHX, C1: 1% CHX, C2: 2% CHX, N0.5: 0.5% NaOCl, N1: 1% NaOCl, N2.5: 2.5% NaOCl, N5.25: 5.25% NaOCl, DW: Distilled water(Control)

^**: Statistical significance (p<0.001)

^*: Statistical significance (p<0.05)

Table 1

Comparison of bacterial turbidity in broth at 630nm wave length after 48hours culture.

A. Turbidity of E. faecalis at 630 nm

B. Turbidity of P. gingivalis at 630 nm

-C0.1: 0.1% CHX, C0.2: 0.2% CHX, C1: 1% CHX, C2: 2% CHX, N0.5: 0.5% NaOCl, N1: 1% NaOCl, N2.5: 2.5% NaOCl, N5.25: 5.25% NaOCl, DW: Distilled water(Control), Av: Average, SD: Standard deviation

Table 2

Comparison of agar diffusion test after 48hours culture (Averages of zones of inhibition)(mm)

A. Diameter of inhibition zone of E. faecalis

B. Diameter of inhibition zone of P. gingivalis

-C0.1: 0.1% CHX, C0.2: 0.2% CHX, C1: 1% CHX, C2: 2% CHX, N0.5: 0.5% NaOCl, N1: 1% NaOCl, N2.5: 2.5% NaOCl, N5.25: 5.25% NaOCl, DW: Distilled water(Control), Av: Average, SD: Standard deviation

Tables & Figures

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Comparison of Antibacterial effect of Listerine® with Various root canal irrigants

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2009;34(6):500-507. Published online November 30, 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2009.34.6.500

XML Download

Figure

Comparison of Antibacterial effect of Listerine® with Various root canal irrigants

Figure 1 Comparison of bacterial turbidity in broth at 630nm wave length after 48hours culture. A. Turbidity of E. faecalis at 630 nm B. Turbidity of P. gingivalis at 630 nm -C0.1: 0.1% CHX, C0.2: 0.2% CHX, C1: 1% CHX, C2: 2% CHX, N0.5: 0.5% NaOCl, N1: 1% NaOCl, N2.5: 2.5% NaOCl, N5.25: 5.25% NaOCl, DW: Distilled water(Control) **: Statistical significance (p<0.001) *: Statistical significance (p<0.05)

Figure 2 Comparison of agar diffusion test after 48hours culture (Averages of zones of inhibition)(mm). A. Diameter of inhibition zone of E. faecalis B. Diameter of inhibition zone of P. gingivalis -C0.1: 0.1% CHX, C0.2: 0.2% CHX, C1: 1% CHX, C2: 2% CHX, N0.5: 0.5% NaOCl, N1: 1% NaOCl, N2.5: 2.5% NaOCl, N5.25: 5.25% NaOCl, DW: Distilled water(Control) **: Statistical significance (p<0.001) *: Statistical significance (p<0.05)

Figure 1

Figure 2

Comparison of Antibacterial effect of Listerine® with Various root canal irrigants

Table 1

Comparison of bacterial turbidity in broth at 630nm wave length after 48hours culture.

A. Turbidity of E. faecalis at 630 nm

B. Turbidity of P. gingivalis at 630 nm

-C0.1: 0.1% CHX, C0.2: 0.2% CHX, C1: 1% CHX, C2: 2% CHX, N0.5: 0.5% NaOCl, N1: 1% NaOCl, N2.5: 2.5% NaOCl, N5.25: 5.25% NaOCl, DW: Distilled water(Control), Av: Average, SD: Standard deviation

Table 2

Comparison of agar diffusion test after 48hours culture (Averages of zones of inhibition)(mm)

A. Diameter of inhibition zone of E. faecalis

B. Diameter of inhibition zone of P. gingivalis

-C0.1: 0.1% CHX, C0.2: 0.2% CHX, C1: 1% CHX, C2: 2% CHX, N0.5: 0.5% NaOCl, N1: 1% NaOCl, N2.5: 2.5% NaOCl, N5.25: 5.25% NaOCl, DW: Distilled water(Control), Av: Average, SD: Standard deviation

Table 1 Comparison of bacterial turbidity in broth at 630nm wave length after 48hours culture.

A. Turbidity of E. faecalis at 630 nm

B. Turbidity of P. gingivalis at 630 nm

-C0.1: 0.1% CHX, C0.2: 0.2% CHX, C1: 1% CHX, C2: 2% CHX, N0.5: 0.5% NaOCl, N1: 1% NaOCl, N2.5: 2.5% NaOCl, N5.25: 5.25% NaOCl, DW: Distilled water(Control), Av: Average, SD: Standard deviation

Table 2 Comparison of agar diffusion test after 48hours culture (Averages of zones of inhibition)(mm)

A. Diameter of inhibition zone of E. faecalis

B. Diameter of inhibition zone of P. gingivalis

-C0.1: 0.1% CHX, C0.2: 0.2% CHX, C1: 1% CHX, C2: 2% CHX, N0.5: 0.5% NaOCl, N1: 1% NaOCl, N2.5: 2.5% NaOCl, N5.25: 5.25% NaOCl, DW: Distilled water(Control), Av: Average, SD: Standard deviation