Rev Med UAS
Vol. 12: No. 4. Octubre-Diciembre 2022
ISSN 2007-8013

Inhibición in vitro del crecimiento de enterococcus faecalis empleando cementos para endodoncia

In vitro inhibition of the growth of enterococcus faecalis using endodontic sealers

Armenta-Molina Josue1, Olivares-Acosta Ivan2, Candolfi-Arballo Ofelia3*

  1. Pasante de Servicio Social Profesional en Investigación en Programa educativo de Cirujano dentista en la Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California.
  2. Cirujano dentista, Maestro en Ciencias de la Salud. Especialista en Endodoncia. Coordinador del área de endodoncia. Profesor de Asignatura en la Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California. Profesionista en la práctica privada.
  3. Licenciada en Biología, Maestra en Ciencias en Microbiología. Profesora de Tiempo Completo e Investigadora en la Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Autónoma de Baja California.

* Correspondencia: Ofelia Candolfi-Arballo.
Boulevard Universitario No. 1000, Valle de las Palmas, Tijuana, Baja California, México. C.P. 22260.
Tel: (6651041766). Correo electrónico: ocandolfi@uabc.edu.mx

DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.28960/revmeduas.2007-8013.v12.n4.004

Texto Completo PDF

Recibido 08 de septiembre 2022, aceptado 25 de octubre 2022

RESUMEN
Objetivo: Evaluar la inhibición del crecimiento de la bacteria Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC® 29212™) en presencia de cementos selladores (CS) utilizados en tratamientos endodónticos mediante experimentación in vitro. --- Materiales y Métodos: Se empleó un diseño metodológico de tipo experimental basado en ensayos de laboratorio. Se utilizó el método de difusión en agar para analizar la actividad antibacteriana de tres CS: EndoSequence (BC Sealer), AHPlus (Dentsply De Trey) y Sealapex (Kerr). Se organizaron los datos y se graficaron los resultados. --- Resultados: Se obtuvo una mayor inhibición del crecimiento bacteriano con el cemento AHPlus (1.50 mm), seguido de EndoSequence (1.10 mm), el CS Sealapex mostró muy poca actividad inhibitoria de E. faecalis (0.2 mm). --- Conclusión: La inhibición del crecimiento de E. faecalis por la presencia de los CS utilizados en endodoncia fue distinta entre sí, existe variabilidad importante en la capacidad antibacteriana de los CS analizados, los hallazgos de este estudio confirman los datos reportados en otros estudios, mientras que para algunos cementos fueron contrastantes.
Palabras clave: Enterococcus faecalis, inhibición bacteriana, cementos endodónticos.

ABSTRACT
Objective: To evaluate the inhibition of the growth of Enterococcus faecalis bacteria (ATCC® 29212™) in the presence of sealer cements (CS) used in endodontic treatments by means of in vitro experimentation. --- Materials and Methods: An experimental methodological design based on laboratory tests was used. The agar diffusion method was used to analyze the antibacterial activity of three CS: Endosequence (BC Sealer), AHPlus (Dentsply De Trey) and Sealapex (Kerr). The data were organized and the results were plotted. --- Results: The highest inhibition of bacterial growth was obtained with AHPlus cement (1.50 mm), followed by Endosequence (1.10 mm), the CS Sealapex showed very little inhibitory activity of E. faecalis (0.2 mm). Conclusion: The inhibition of the growth of E. faecalis by the presence of the CS used in endodontics was different from each other, there is significant variability in the antibacterial capacity of the CS analyzed, the findings of this study confirm the data reported in other studies, while for some cements were contrasting.
Keywords: Enterococcus faecalis, bacterial inhibition, endodontic cements.

REFERENCIAS

  1. Sundqvist G. Bacteriological studies of necrotic dental pulps [Internet]. Vol. 7. Umea, Sweden; 1976. Disponible en: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:719968/FULLTEXT02
  2. Kakehashi S, Stanley HR, Fitzgerald RJ. The effects of surgical exposures of dental pulps in germ-free and conventional laboratory rats. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1965;20:340–9.
  3. Ng Y-L, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature. Part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J. 2008;41(1):6–31.
  4. Hugh CL, Walton RE, Facer SR. Evaluation of intracanal sealer distribution with 5 different obturation techniques. Quintessence Int. 2005;36(9):721–9.
  5. American Association of Endodontists. Guide to Clinical Endodontics [Internet]. 2013. Disponible en: https://www.aae.org/specialty/clinical-resources/guide-clinical-endodontics/
  6. Hargreaves KM, Berman LH. Cohen´s Pathways of the pulp. 11a ed. St Louis, Vasa: Elsevier; 2016.
  7. Gopikrishna V, Grossman LI, Chandra BS. Grossman’s endodontic practice. [Internet]. 13va. Canada; 2020 [citado el 21 de enero de 2022]. 526 p. Disponible en: https://dokumen.pub/grossmans-endodontic-practice-9789389859928.html
  8. Sjögren U, Figdor D, Spångberg L, Sundqvist G. The antimicrobial effect of calcium hydroxide as a short-term intracanal dressing. Int Endod J. 1991;24(3):119–25.
  9. Komabayashi T, Colmenar D, Cvach N, Bhat A, Primus C, Imai Y. Comprehensive review of current endodontic sealers. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(5):703–20.
  10. Singh G, Gupta I, Elshamy FMM, Boreak N, Homeida HE. In vitro comparison of antibacterial properties of bioceramic-based sealer, resin-based sealer and zinc oxide eugenol based sealer and two mineral trioxide aggregates. Eur J Dent. 2016;10(3):366–9.
  11. Hasheminia M, Razavian H, Mosleh H, Shakerian B. In vitro evaluation of the antibacterial activity of five sealers used in root canal therapy. Dent Res J. 2017;14:62.
  12. Colombo M, Poggio C, Dagna A, Meravini M-V, Riva P, Trovati F, et al. Biological and physico-chemical properties of new root canal sealers. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(2):e120–6.
  13. Shin J-H, Lee D-Y, Lee S-H. Comparison of antimicrobial activity of traditional and new developed root sealers against pathogens related root canal. J Dent Sci. 2018;13(1):54–9.
  14. Kharouf N, Arntz Y, Eid A, Zghal J, Sauro S, Haikel Y, et al. Physicochemical and Antibacterial Properties of Novel, Premixed Calcium Silicate-Based Sealer Compared to Powder-Liquid Bioceramic Sealer. J Clin Med. 2020;9(10):E3096.
  15. Nirupama DN, Nainan MT, Ramaswamy R, Muralidharan S, Usha HHL, Sharma R, et al. In Vitro Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Efficacy of Four Endodontic Biomaterials against Enterococcus faecalis, Candida albicans, and Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Biomater. 2014;2014:383756.
  16. Donnermeyer D, Bürklein S, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Endodontic sealers based on calcium silicates: a systematic review. Odontol. 2019;107(4):421–36.
  17. Lim M, Jung C, Shin D-H, Cho Y, Song M. Calcium silicate-based root canal sealers: a literature review. Restor Dent Endod. 2020;45(3):e35.
  18. Barbosa VM, Pitondo-Silva A, Oliveira-Silva M, Martorano AS, Rizzi-Maia C de C, Silva-Sousa YTC, et al. Antibacterial Activity of a New Ready-To-Use Calcium Silicate-Based Sealer. Braz Dent J. 2020;31(6):611–6.
  19. Bose R, Ioannidis K, Foschi F, Bakhsh A, Kelly RD, Deb S, et al. Antimicrobial Effectiveness of Calcium Silicate Sealers against a Nutrient-Stressed Multispecies Biofilm. J Clin Med. 2020;9(9):2722.
  20. Azar NG, Heidari M, Bahrami ZS, Shokri F. In vitro cytotoxicity of a new epoxy resin root canal sealer. J Endod. agosto de 2000;26(8):462–5.
  21. Zhang W, Li Z, Peng B. Ex vivo cytotoxicity of a new calcium silicate-based canal filling material. Int Endod J. 2010;43(9):769–74.
  22. Raghavendra SS, Jadhav GR, Gathani KM, Kotadia P. Bioceramics in endodontics – a review. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2017;51(3 Suppl 1):S128–37.
  23. Šimundić Munitić M, Budimir A, Jakovljević S, Anić I, Bago I. Short-Term Antibacterial Efficacy of Three Bioceramic Root Canal Sealers Against Enterococcus Faecalis Biofilms. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2020;54(1):3–9.
  24. Huang Y, Li X, Mandal P, Wu Y, Liu L, Gui H, et al. The in vitro antimicrobial activities of four endodontic sealers. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19.
  25. Du T, Wang Z, Shen Y, Ma J, Cao Y, Haapasalo M. Combined Antibacterial Effect of Sodium Hypochlorite and Root Canal Sealers against Enterococcus faecalis Biofilms in Dentin Canals. J Endod. 2015;41(8):1294–8.
  26. Wang Z, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. Dentin extends the antibacterial effect of endodontic sealers against Enterococcus faecalis biofilms. J Endod. 2014;40(4):505–8.
  27. Bukhari S, Karabucak B. The Antimicrobial Effect of Bioceramic Sealer on an 8-week Matured Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm Attached to Root Canal Dentinal Surface. J Endod. 2019;45(8):1047–52.
  28. AlShwaimi E, Bogari D, Ajaj R, Al-Shahrani S, Almas K, Majeed A. In Vitro Antimicrobial Effectiveness of Root Canal Sealers against Enterococcus faecalis: A Systematic Review. J Endod. 2016;42(11):1588–97.
  29. Alsubait S, Albader S, Alajlan N, Alkhunaini N, Niazy A, Almahdy A. Comparison of the antibacterial activity of calcium silicate- and epoxy resin-based endodontic sealers against Enterococcus faecalis biofilms: a confocal laser-scanning microscopy analysis. Odontol. 2019;107(4):513–20.
  30. Poggio C, Trovati F, Ceci M, Colombo M, Pietrocola G. Antibacterial activity of different root canal sealers against Enterococcus faecalis. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(6):e743–8.
  31. Šimundić Munitić M, Poklepović Peričić T, Utrobičić A, Bago I, Puljak L. Antimicrobial efficacy of commercially available endodontic bioceramic root canal sealers: A systematic review. PloS One. 2019;14(10):e0223575.
  32. Prestegaard H, Portenier I, Ørstavik D, Kayaoglu G, Haapasalo M, Endal U. Antibacterial activity of various root canal sealers and root-end filling materials in dentin blocks infected ex vivo with Enterococcus faecalis. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014;72(8):970–6.
  33. Bauer AW, Kirby WM, Sherris JC, Turck M. Antibiotic susceptibility testing by a standardized single disk method. Am J Clin Pathol. 1966;45(4):493–6.
  34. García-Rodríguez JA, Cantón R, García-Sánchez JE, Gomez-Lus ML, Martínez Martínez L, Rodríguez-Avial C, et al. Procedimientos en Microbiología Clínica. Métodos básicos para el estudio de la sensibilidad a los antimicrobianos. [Internet]. Picazo JJ, editor. 2000. Disponible en: https://www.seimc.org/contenidos/documentoscientificos/procedimientosmicrobiologia/seimc-procedimientomicrobiologia11.pdf
  35. Cona E. Condiciones para un buen estudio de susceptibilidad mediante test de difusión en agar. Rev Chil Infectol [Internet]. 2002 [citado el 27 de marzo de 2022];19. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0716-10182002019200001&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en
  36. Heredia-Veloz D, Abad-Coronel D, Villavicencio-Caparó E. Eficacia antibacteriana de tres selladores endodónticos frente al Enterococcus faecalis. Rev Estomatol Hered. 2017;27(3):132.