4.5 Article

Evaluation of Nd:YAG and Er:YAG irradiation, antibacterial photodynamic therapy and sodium hypochlorite treatment on Enterococcus faecalis biofilms

期刊

INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
卷 45, 期 5, 页码 482-491

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.02000.x

关键词

biofilm; disinfection; Enterococcus faecalis; laser; photodynamic therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To compare the antimicrobial efficacy of two-high power lasers (Nd:YAG and Er:YAG) and two commercial antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) systems with that of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) action on Enterococcus faecalis biofilms grown on dentine discs. Methodology Enterococcus faecalis biofilms were grown on dentine discs in a microtiter plate, incubated for 24 h and subjected to the following treatments: aPDT (Denfotex and Helbo system), Er:YAG laser irradiation (2940 nm, 50 mJ or 100 mJ, 15 Hz, 40 s), Nd:YAG laser irradiation (1064 nm, 2 W, 15 Hz, 40 s) and immersion in 2.5% (w/v) NaOCl for 1, 5, 10 and 30 min. Surviving bacteria were harvested, and the number of CFU per disc was determined by plate counting. Results Significant reductions (anova, P = 0.05) in viable counts were observed for aPDT (Helbo) (2 log10 reduction), Er:YAG irradiation using 100 mJ pulses (4.3 log10 reduction) and all NaOCl treatments (>6 log10 reduction). NaOCl (2.5%) for 5 min effectively eliminated all bacteria. aPDT (Denfotex), Er:YAG irradiation using 50 mJ pulses and Nd:YAG treatment caused a reduction in the viable counts of <1 log10 unit; these results were not significantly different from the untreated controls. Conclusion Within the limitations of this particular laboratory set-up, NaOCl was the most effective in E.similar to faecalis biofilm elimination, while Er:YAG laser treatment (100 mJ pulses) also resulted in high reductions in viable counts. The use of both commercial aPDT systems resulted in a weak reduction in the number of E.similar to faecalis cells. Nd:YAG irradiation was the least effective.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据