Limits...
Bioactive Glass S53P4 versus Chlorhexidine Gluconate as Intracanal Medicament in Primary Teeth: An In-vivo Study Using Polymerase Chain Reaction Analysis.

Goel A, Sinha A, Khandeparker RV, Mehrotra R, Vashisth P, Garg A - J Int Oral Health (2015)

Bottom Line: BAG S53P4 caused much more reduction than CHX 1% gel.Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the two groups.BAG S53P4 has superior antibacterial property as compared to CHX 1% gel.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Senior Lecturer, Department of Community Dentistry, Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Research, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: Bacteria have long been recognized as the primary etiology for pulpal and periapical lesions, which necessitates the elimination of bacteria from the root canal system. In primary teeth, irrigation and debridement is the main protocol required to disinfect the canal. Biomechanical preparation cannot be vigorously done on the primary teeth due to anatomical barrier such as thin and flared roots. This calls for the use of an effective intracanal medication that will assist disinfection of root canal system. Aim of the study was to examine the in-vivo susceptibility of root canal bacteria to chlorhexidine (CHX) gluconate-1% gel and bioactive glass (BAG) S53P4 when used as intracanal medicaments using polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

Methodology: PCR (analysis used oligonucleotide primers of Escherichia coli) was used to detect and compare the microbial load reduction after medication of 14 teeth for a week with either CHX gel - 1% or BAG S53P4. The pre and post microbial load was checked in the form of colony forming units. When analysis was done, a statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups.

Results: The study revealed that both medicaments caused a considerable amount of microbial load reduction. BAG S53P4 caused much more reduction than CHX 1% gel. Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the two groups.

Conclusion: BAG S53P4 has superior antibacterial property as compared to CHX 1% gel.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Polymerase chain reaction machine.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4588793&req=5

Figure 3: Polymerase chain reaction machine.

Mentions: The irrigants used during the endodontic procedures have a role in eliminating these bacteria and their by - products up to a certain extent, i.e., although chemomechanical preparation has an important cleaning effect, it cannot eliminate all the bacteria from the root canal system. The remaining bacteria may multiply during the period between appointments, often reaching the same level that it was at the start of the previous session, in cases where the canal is not dressed with a disinfectant between visits. This calls for the use of an effective intracanal medication that will assist disinfection of the root canal system.3 Calcium hydroxide has been considered the “gold standard” as an intracanal medicament, but now it has been proved that this material is not equally effective against all the bacteria.4 The various medicaments compared in various in-vitro studies are active point (medicated gutta-percha with chlorhexidine (CHX) diacetate), calcium hydroxide plus point (medicated gutta-percha with calcium hydroxide), calcium hydroxide, 1% CHX gel, bioactive glass (BAG) (S53P4),5 camphorated paramonochlorophenol, camphorated phenol.6 Thus, the present study was undertaken to compare the in-vivo efficiency of CHX gluconate gel and BAG S53P4 using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using oligonucleotide primers of Escherichia coli for detection of microbial load in the root canal.


Bioactive Glass S53P4 versus Chlorhexidine Gluconate as Intracanal Medicament in Primary Teeth: An In-vivo Study Using Polymerase Chain Reaction Analysis.

Goel A, Sinha A, Khandeparker RV, Mehrotra R, Vashisth P, Garg A - J Int Oral Health (2015)

Polymerase chain reaction machine.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4588793&req=5

Figure 3: Polymerase chain reaction machine.
Mentions: The irrigants used during the endodontic procedures have a role in eliminating these bacteria and their by - products up to a certain extent, i.e., although chemomechanical preparation has an important cleaning effect, it cannot eliminate all the bacteria from the root canal system. The remaining bacteria may multiply during the period between appointments, often reaching the same level that it was at the start of the previous session, in cases where the canal is not dressed with a disinfectant between visits. This calls for the use of an effective intracanal medication that will assist disinfection of the root canal system.3 Calcium hydroxide has been considered the “gold standard” as an intracanal medicament, but now it has been proved that this material is not equally effective against all the bacteria.4 The various medicaments compared in various in-vitro studies are active point (medicated gutta-percha with chlorhexidine (CHX) diacetate), calcium hydroxide plus point (medicated gutta-percha with calcium hydroxide), calcium hydroxide, 1% CHX gel, bioactive glass (BAG) (S53P4),5 camphorated paramonochlorophenol, camphorated phenol.6 Thus, the present study was undertaken to compare the in-vivo efficiency of CHX gluconate gel and BAG S53P4 using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using oligonucleotide primers of Escherichia coli for detection of microbial load in the root canal.

Bottom Line: BAG S53P4 caused much more reduction than CHX 1% gel.Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the two groups.BAG S53P4 has superior antibacterial property as compared to CHX 1% gel.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Senior Lecturer, Department of Community Dentistry, Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Research, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: Bacteria have long been recognized as the primary etiology for pulpal and periapical lesions, which necessitates the elimination of bacteria from the root canal system. In primary teeth, irrigation and debridement is the main protocol required to disinfect the canal. Biomechanical preparation cannot be vigorously done on the primary teeth due to anatomical barrier such as thin and flared roots. This calls for the use of an effective intracanal medication that will assist disinfection of root canal system. Aim of the study was to examine the in-vivo susceptibility of root canal bacteria to chlorhexidine (CHX) gluconate-1% gel and bioactive glass (BAG) S53P4 when used as intracanal medicaments using polymerase chain reaction (PCR).

Methodology: PCR (analysis used oligonucleotide primers of Escherichia coli) was used to detect and compare the microbial load reduction after medication of 14 teeth for a week with either CHX gel - 1% or BAG S53P4. The pre and post microbial load was checked in the form of colony forming units. When analysis was done, a statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups.

Results: The study revealed that both medicaments caused a considerable amount of microbial load reduction. BAG S53P4 caused much more reduction than CHX 1% gel. Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the two groups.

Conclusion: BAG S53P4 has superior antibacterial property as compared to CHX 1% gel.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus