Calcium hydroxide is a common endodontic medicament and has an anti-microbial effect by increasing the localized pH within the root canal. However, Enterococcus faecalis has shown some resistance to calcium hydroxide.
A flow cell apparatus was used to grow an E. faecalis biofilm on dentine discs. Following 4 weeks growth in Todd Hewitt Broth, flow cells were exposed to either a rapid or slow increase to pH 11.5 or 12.5. Cellular viability was determined using serial plating and the number of colony forming units was normalised against the cellular protein content. Scanning electron microscopy was carried out to qualitatively observe the effects of the different rates of pH increase.
A significant difference in viability between the pH rapid and slow groups was not shown in this study. Compared to pH 11.5 solutions, pH 12.5 solutions were more effective at killing bacteria although some E. faecalis still survived.
E. faecalis did not adapt and develop a greater resistance to high pH following a slow rise in pH compared with a rapid rise in pH. As expected, pH 12.5 was more effective in reducing bacterial numbers compared to pH 11.5 although E. faecalis was not completely eliminated. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
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 13 January 2018.
All research outputs
#19,912,587
of 24,471,305 outputs
Outputs from Australian Dental Journal
#557
of 758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#337,481
of 446,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Australian Dental Journal
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,471,305 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 758 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 446,013 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.
