4.5 Article

Dentinal tubule invasion and adherence by Enterococcus faecalis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
Volume 41, Issue 10, Pages 873-882

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01445.x

Keywords

adherence; dentinal tubules; Enterococcus faecalis; invasion

Funding

  1. Australian Society of Endodontology
  2. Australian Dental Research Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To investigate dentinal tubule invasion and the predilection of Enterococcus faecalis for dentinal tubule walls. Methodology The invasion of dentinal tubules in extracted human teeth by E. faecalis was measured ex vivo after 8 weeks of incubation. The canal walls of 16 root sections were either intact or instrumented with or without smear layer present. Extent and maximum depth of tubule invasion were assessed histologically and compared between groups. In the adherence study, 44 vertically split root samples were prepared to expose longitudinally aligned dentinal tubules and fractured orthodentine (OD). Surfaces were exposed to E. faecalis (erythromycin resistant strain, JH2-2 carrying plasmid pGh9:ISS1) and incubated aerobically for 2 h. Samples were processed for analysis using scanning electron microscopy. Bacterial adhesion to tubule walls versus fractured OD was calculated as number of cells per 100 mu m(2). Results The strain of E. faecalis used in this study showed moderate to heavy tubule invasion after 8 weeks. In the adhesion studies, significantly more bacteria adhered to fractured OD than to dentinal tubule walls (ANOVA, P < 0.001). With respect to the tubule wall, adherence was greater in inner versus outer dentine (P = 0.02) and greater when bacterial adhesion was tested in chemically defined medium than in phosphate-buffered saline (ANOVA, P < 0.001). Conclusions Although E. faecalis readily invaded tubules, it did not adhere preferentially to tubule walls. Initial colonization of dentinal tubules by E. faecalis may depend primarily on other factors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available