+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Antibacterial Activity of Endodontic Sealers by Modified Direct Contact Test Against Enterococcus faecalis

      , , ,

      Journal of Endodontics

      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          The antibacterial effectiveness of 7 different endodontic sealers, AH Plus, Apexit Plus, iRoot SP, Tubli Seal, Sealapex, Epiphany SE, and EndoRez against Enterococcus faecalis was studied in vitro. A modified direct contact test was used. Bacteria in suspension were exposed to the materials for 2-60 minutes by using sealers that were freshly mixed or set for 1, 3, and 7 days. The pH values and contact angles of sterile water on sealers at different times after setting were also measured. Fresh iRoot SP killed all bacteria in 2 minutes, AH Plus in 5 minutes, EndoRez in 20 minutes, and Sealapex and Epiphany in 60 minutes. Freshly mixed Apexit Plus and Tubli Seal failed to kill all bacteria at 60 minutes. For 1-day and 3-day samples, iRoot SP and EndoRez had the strongest antibacterial activity, followed by Sealapex and Epiphany; Tubli Seal and AH Plus did n'ot show any significant antibacterial activity. Of all the samples, Apexit Plus had the lowest antimicrobial activity. The pH of the sealers could not alone explain their antibacterial effect. Fresh iRoot SP, AH Plus, and EndoRez killed E. faecalis effectively. IRoot SP and EndoRez continued to be effective for 3 and 7 days after mixing. Sealapex and EndoRez were the only ones with antimicrobial activity even at 7 days after mixing.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal of Endodontics
          Journal of Endodontics
          Elsevier BV
          July 2009
          July 2009
          : 35
          : 7
          : 1051-1055
          © 2009


          Comment on this article