4.6 Article

Combination of 10% EDTA, Photosan, and a blue light hand-held photopolymerizer to inactivate leading oral bacteria in dentistry in vitro

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 107, 期 5, 页码 1569-1578

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04342.x

关键词

chelation of metal ions; oral bacteria; outer membrane permeability; photodynamic inactivation; photopolymerizer

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [MA 4114/2-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: The goal of this study was to investigate the phototoxicity of Photosan in combination with EDTA and a hand-held photopolymerizer used in dentistry for light-curing resins against leading key pathogens in caries, endodontic treatment failures, and periodontitis respectively. Methods and Results: Cellular uptake of Photosan was detected by fluorescence spectroscopy for Streptococcus mutans and Enterococcus faecalis but not for Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans. Addition of 10% EDTA enabled the uptake of Photosan by A. actinomycetemcomitans. Killing of S. mutans and E. faecalis mediated by Photosan and blue light was concentration and light dose dependent, achieving a >= 99 center dot 9% (>= 3 log(10) reduction) efficacy of bacteria killing. In the presence of 10% EDTA, Photosan induced a reduction of >= 4 log(10) in the viability of A. actinomycetemcomitans at a concentration of 50 mu g ml-1, upon activation at a dose of 9 center dot 65 J cm-2 for 60 s. EDTA alone, light alone, and Photosan alone were not able to kill bacteria. Conclusions: Ten per cent EDTA and Photosan cause a potent phototoxicity against oral bacteria upon illumination with a photopolymerizer. Significance and Impact of the Study: Increasing antibiotic resistance and insufficient drug concentrations within the sulcus fluid are responsible for lacking antimicrobial efficacy. This study provides useful information that combination of Photosan, EDTA, and a photopolymerizer may be a potentially powerful tool for the efficient destroying of key oral bacteria.

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

4.6
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