| Title |
Effect of gaseous ozone on Enterococcus faecalis biofilm–an in vitro study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oral Investigations, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00784-015-1667-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tanja Boch, Christian Tennert, Kirstin Vach, Ali Al-Ahmad, Elmar Hellwig, Olga Polydorou |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial effect of gaseous ozone compared to conventional methods against Enterococcus faecalis. One hundred twenty-five teeth were infected by E. faecalis and were incubated for 72 h to form biofilm. Teeth were distributed among five groups. In the first group, ozone was used; in the second group, teeth were rinsed with 20 % ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA); in the third group, with 3 % sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). Group 4 combined 20 % EDTA with ozone. NaOCl and ozone were combined in group 5. After treatment, the samples with paper points were taken, followed by dentin samples taken with K-file, and cultured for 24 h. Then bacterial colonies were counted. All treatments reduced significantly (p < 0.05) the bacteria. Paper points' samples showed 85.38 % reduction after ozone. The highest reduction was observed in NaOCl group (99.98 %). EDTA reduced bacteria by 80.64 %. Combination of NaOCl and ozone eradicated 99.95 % of the bacteria. Combination of EDTA and ozone reduced E. faecalis up to 91.33 %. The dentin chips showed the following: the highest CFU counts were observed in EDTA group, followed by ozone and NaOCl group. The lowest CFU counts were found in NaOCl-ozone group and EDTA-ozone group. Ozone reduced E. faecalis, even organised in a biofilm, however, lower than NaOCl. No treatment reduced totally the bacteria. Used as an adjuvant, ozone can increase the efficacy of conventional rinsing like EDTA and presents an alternative treatment when NaOCl cannot be used e.g. in teeth with a wide-open apical foramen. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 83 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 34 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 37 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,297,343
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#1,019
of 1,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#324,904
of 387,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#25
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,408 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 387,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.