4.5 Article

An in vitro evaluation of the ability of ozone to kill a strain of Enterococcus faecalis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
卷 38, 期 1, 页码 22-29

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00891.x

关键词

antibacterial; Enterococcus faecalis; ozone

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To evaluate the potential of ozone as an antibacterial agent using Enterococcus faecalis as the test species. Methodology Ozone was produced by a custom-made bench top generator and its solubility in water determined by ultraviolet (258 nm) spectrophotometric analysis of solutions through which ozone was sparged for various time-periods. The antibacterial efficacy of ozone was tested against both broth and biofilm cultures. Ozone was sparged for 30, 60, 120 and 240 s, through overnight broth cultures of a strain of E. faecalis (E78.2) and compared with those that were centrifuged, washed and resuspended in water. Enterococcus faecalis (E78.2) biofilms were grown on cellulose nitrate membrane filters for 48 h and suspended in water through which ozone gas was sparged with stirring for 60, 120 and 240 s in a standard fashion. In a separate test, biofilms were also exposed to gaseous ozone. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) was used as a positive control. All experiments were repeated four times. Results There were significant (P < 0.05) reductions of bacteria in the unwashed (2 log(10) reductions) and washed (5 log(10) reductions) broth cultures following 240 s applications. Biofilms incubated for 240 s with ozonated water showed no significant reduction in cell viability attributable to ozone alone, whereas with NaOCl no viable cells were detected over the same time. Gaseous ozone applied for 300 s had no effect on these biofilms. Conclusions Ozone had an antibacterial effect on planktonic E. faecalis cells and those suspended in fluid, but little effect when embedded in biofilms. Its antibacterial efficacy was not comparable with that of NaOCl under the test conditions used.

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