Antibacterial Efficacy of Different Irrigants Used During Endodontic Surgery: A Comparative Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63682/jns.v14i26S.6576Keywords:
Endodontic surgery, antibacterial efficacy, sodium hypochlorite, chlorhexidine, irrigants, periapical infectionAbstract
Background: Endodontic surgery is often required in cases of persistent periapical infections where conventional root canal treatment fails. Effective irrigation plays a crucial role in bacterial elimination, thereby improving surgical outcomes. Various irrigants, including sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), chlorhexidine (CHX), ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), and newer biocompatible agents, have been evaluated for their antibacterial efficacy.
Objective: The present study aimed to compare the antibacterial efficacy of different irrigants used during endodontic surgery to determine the most effective solution for bacterial elimination in periapical infections.
Methodology: Extracted human teeth with standardized periapical lesions were inoculated with Enterococcus faecalis and divided into groups based on the irrigation solution used: (1) 5.25% NaOCl, (2) 2% CHX, (3) 17% EDTA, (4) Herbal irrigants (e.g., propolis or neem), and (5) Sterile saline as a control. The samples underwent surgical endodontic procedures, followed by microbiological analysis using colony-forming unit (CFU) counts and confocal laser scanning microscopy to assess bacterial viability.
Results: The findings suggested that NaOCl demonstrated the highest antibacterial efficacy, followed by CHX, while herbal irrigants showed promising results with fewer cytotoxic effects. EDTA exhibited limited direct antibacterial action but enhanced biofilm removal. The control group (saline) showed persistent bacterial growth.
Conclusion: The study highlighted the importance of selecting an appropriate irrigant in surgical endodontics. While NaOCl remained the gold standard, alternative irrigants such as CHX and herbal solutions offered effective antibacterial properties with improved biocompatibility. Further research was recommended to assess their long-term clinical outcomes.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Kim S, Kratchman S. Modern endodontic surgery concepts and practice: a review. J Endod. 2006;32(7):601–623.
Stuart CH, Schwartz SA, Beeson TJ, Owatz CB. Enterococcus faecalis: its role in root canal treatment failure and current concepts in retreatment. J Endod. 2006;32(2):93–98.
Sedgley CM, Molander A, Flannagan SE, Nagel AC, Appelbe OK, Clewell DB, et al. Virulence, phenotype, and genotype characteristics of endodontic Enterococcus faecalis. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 2005;20(6):309–317.
Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod. 2006;32(5):389–398.
Gomes BPFA, Ferraz CCR, Vianna ME, Berber VB, Teixeira FB, Souza-Filho FJ. In vitro antimicrobial activity of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate in the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J. 2001;34(6):424–428.
Hülsmann M, Hahn W. Complications during root canal irrigation—literature review and case reports. Int Endod J. 2000;33(3):186–193.
White RR, Hays GL, Janer LR. Residual antimicrobial activity after canal irrigation with chlorhexidine. J Endod. 1997;23(4):229–231.
Basrani B, Manek S, Sodhi R, Fillery E, Manzur A. Interaction between sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate. J Endod. 2007;33(8):966–969.
Baumgartner JC, Mader CL. A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of four root canal irrigation regimens. J Endod. 1987;13(4):147–157.
Kuruvilla A, Jaganath BM. EDTA in root canal therapy: a review. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(5):65–69.
Prabhakar J, Senthilkumar M, Priya MS, Mahalakshmi K, Sehgal PK, Sukumaran VG. 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. J Endod. 2010;36(1):83–86.
Parameswaran A, Anitha P. Neem as an endodontic irrigant. J Pharm Sci Res. 2016;8(8):804–807.
Kandaswamy D, Venkateshbabu N. Root canal irrigants. J Conserv Dent. 2010;13(4):256–264.
George S, Kishen A. Advanced imaging to evaluate the impact of endodontic procedures on root dentin structure and biofilms. J Endod. 2007;33(12):1412–1416.
Mohammadi Z. Sodium hypochlorite in endodontics: an update review. Int Dent J. 2008;58(6):329-341.
Gomes BPFA, et al. In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of five root canal sealers. Braz Dent J. 2001;12(2):117-122.
McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999;12(1):147-179.
Basrani BR, et al. Efficacy of chlorhexidine for root canal disinfection. Int Endod J. 2004;37(6):365-371.
Vianna ME, Gomes BPFA. Efficacy of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis: a systematic review. Int Endod J. 2005;38(3):125-138.
Alzohairy MA. Therapeutics role of Azadirachta indica (neem) and their active constituents in diseases prevention and treatment. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2016;2016:7382506.
Prashanth GM, et al. The antimicrobial efficacy of different concentrations of neem extract against Streptococcus mutans: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res. 2010;21(3):375-379.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
