Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
Related content
(Reference retrieved automatically from SciELO through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of five root canal sealers

Full text
Author(s):
Brenda Paula Figueiredo de Almeida Gomes [1] ; José Assis Pedroso [2] ; Rogério Castilho Jacinto [3] ; Morgana Eli Vianna [4] ; Caio Cezar Randi Ferraz [5] ; Alexandre Augusto Zaia [6] ; Francisco José de Souza-Filho [7]
Total Authors: 7
Affiliation:
[1] UNICAMP. Dental School of Piracicaba. Area of Endodontics - Brasil
[2] UNICAMP. Dental School of Piracicaba. Area of Endodontics - Brasil
[3] UNICAMP. Dental School of Piracicaba. Area of Endodontics - Brasil
[4] UNICAMP. Dental School of Piracicaba. Area of Endodontics - Brasil
[5] UNICAMP. Dental School of Piracicaba. Area of Endodontics - Brasil
[6] UNICAMP. Dental School of Piracicaba. Area of Endodontics - Brasil
[7] UNICAMP. Dental School of Piracicaba. Area of Endodontics - Brasil
Total Affiliations: 7
Document type: Journal article
Source: Brazilian Dental Journal; v. 15, n. 1, p. 30-35, 2004-00-00.
Abstract

The aim of the present study was to analyze the antimicrobial properties of five endodontic sealers: Endo Fill, Endomethasone, Endomethasone N, Sealer 26 and AH-Plus, against the following microorganisms: Candida albicans, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus sanguis and Actinomyces naeslundii. The sealers were tested immediately, 24 h, 48 h and 7 days after manipulation.The direct contact method through the observation of the microbial growth in liquid medium and the agar diffusion test were used to evaluate the antimicrobial properties of the sealers. The results, in both methodologies used, showed that immediately after manipulation, Endo-Fill and Endomethasone demonstrated the highest antimicrobial activity, with no statistically significant difference between them. Sealer 26 demonstrated the lowest antimicrobial activity. At all other times after manipulation, there were no statistically significant differences among all the sealers tested. In conclusion, none of the sealers totally inhibited the growth of the microorganisms. Furthermore, the antimicrobial activity of each sealer decreased with time and was dependent upon the microbial susceptibility to them. (AU)