4.5 Article

Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Herbal Alternatives (Triphala and Green Tea Polyphenols), MTAD, and 5% Sodium Hypochlorite against Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm Formed on Tooth Substrate: An In Vitro Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 83-86

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.09.040

关键词

Biofilm; E. faecalis; green tea polyphenols; GTP; herbal; MTAD; NaOCl; root canal irrigant; Triphala

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of Triphala, green tea polyphenols (GTP), MTAD, and 5% sodium hypochlorite against E. faecalis biofilm formed on tooth substrate. Methods: Extracted human teeth were biomechanically prepared, vertically sectioned, placed in the tissue culture wells exposing the root canal surface to E. faecalis to form a biofilm. At the end of the 3rd and 6th weeks all groups were treated for 10 minutes with the test solutions and control and were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Results: Qualitative assay with 3-week biofilm showed complete inhibition of bacterial growth with Triphala, MTAD and NaOCl, except GTP and saline, which showed presence of bacterial growth. In quantitative analysis, GTP- and saline-treated tooth samples have shown 1516 +/- 17.2 CFU/mL, 156.4 x 10(9) +/- 3.1 x 10(9) CFU/mL respectively. Qualitative assay with 6-week biofilm showed growth when treated with Triphala, GTP and MTAD whereas NaOCl has shown complete inhibition. All groups except NaOCl showed eight log reduction when compared to control when analyzed quantitatively. Conclusions: 5% sodium hypochlorite showed maximum antibacterial activity against E. Faecalis biofilm formed on tooth substrate. Triphala, green tea polyphenols and MTAD showed statistically significant antibacterial activity. The use of herbal alternatives as a root canal irrigant might prove to be advantageous considering the several undesirable characteristics of NaOCl. (J Endod 2010;36:83-86)

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