Comparative in vitro antibacterial activity of six root canal sealers against Enterococcus faecalis and Proteus vulgaris.

AIM: To evaluate the antimicrobial properties of six endodontic sealers in unset and set states against Enterococcus faecalis and Proteus vulgaris. METHODS: Six endodontic sealers were investigated in the unset and set state against Enterococcus feacalis and Proteus vulgaris using agar diffusion and direct contact tests. RESULTS: The mean inhibition zones for agar diffusion tests with Enterococcus feacalis were 19 mm for AH-26, 11 mm for TopSeal and Roth 601, 1 mm for AH-Plus, and 0 mm for GuttaFlow and EndoREZ (Kruskal-Wallis, P < 0.001). The mean inhibition zones with Proteus vulgaris were 24 mm for Roth 601, 19 mm for TopSeal, 17 mm for AH-Plus, 16 mm for AH-26, and 0 mm for GuttaFlow and EndoREZ (Kruskal-Wallis, P < 0.001). Direct contact tests showed inhibition of both Enterococcus feacalis and Proteus vulgaris with AH-Plus, TopSeal, Roth 601, and AH-26 in the unset state. Only Roth 601 in the set state affected both the log and the stationary phase of Proteus vulgaris (logistic regression P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of Roth 601, which retained its antimicrobial activity, the AH-Plus, TopSeal, and AH-26 sealers all demonstrated antimicrobial properties against Enterococcus feacalis and Proteus vulgaris that diminished when set. TopSeal significantly affected Enterococcus feacalis when compared with AH-Plus. GuttaFlow and EndoREZ expressed no antimicrobial activity.

Evaluation of different methods for the root-end cavity preparation.

OBJECTIVE: The dentinal walls of root-end cavities were examined for the presence of cracks and debris in correlation with the area of the root surfaces that remained after the resection. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred extracted single-rooted teeth were endodontically treated, mounted in acrylic resin blocks, and the apical 2 mm of the root-apex was resected. According to the resected root surface area the teeth were divided into 2 groups having large (>2 mm(2)) or small (<2 mm(2)) surface area. For retrograde cavity preparation 4 devices were used: slow-speed handpiece, diamond coated stainless steel ultrasonic tip, smooth stainless steel ultrasonic tips, and sonic diamond-coated tips. Teeth were examined under a videomicroscope for the presence of fractures, dentin chips, and gutta-percha remnants on cavity walls. Preparation time was also recorded. RESULTS: Preparation with smooth stainless steel ultrasonic tips produced few intradentin cracks. Dentin debris was more frequently seen in rotary preparations whereas gutta-percha remnants were seen mainly at ultrasonically prepared teeth. CONCLUSIONS: Sonic and ultrasonic devices produced cleaner, well-centered, and more conservative root-end cavities than the rotary instrumentation. Cracks do not correlate directly with the surface area of the root-end surfaces but rather with the type of retrotip used to prepare the root-end cavity.