↓ Skip to main content

In vitro antibacterial activity of a silicone-based endodontic sealer and two conventional sealers

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Oral Research, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In vitro antibacterial activity of a silicone-based endodontic sealer and two conventional sealers
Published in
Brazilian Oral Research, January 2016
DOI 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2016.vol30.0018
Pubmed ID
Authors

WAINSTEIN, Marcela, MORGENTAL, Renata Dornelles, WALTRICK, Silvana Beltrami Gonçalves, OLIVEIRA, Sílvia Dias, VIER-PELISSER, Fabiana Vieira, FIGUEIREDO, José Antonio Poli, STEIER, Liviu, TAVARES, Cauana Oliva, SCARPARO, Roberta Kochenborger, WAINSTEIN, Marcela, MORGENTAL, Renata Dornelles, WALTRICK, Silvana Beltrami Gonçalves, OLIVEIRA, Sílvia Dias, VIER-PELISSER, Fabiana Vieira, FIGUEIREDO, José Antonio Poli, STEIER, Liviu, TAVARES, Cauana Oliva, SCARPARO, Roberta Kochenborger

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the modification in the silver component is capable of providing GuttaFlow 2 with antibacterial activity against Enterococcus faecalis compared with epoxy resin-based (AH Plus) and zinc oxide and eugenol-based (Endofill) sealers. The antibacterial activity was evaluated using a reference strain of E. faecalis (ATCC 29212). Freshly mixed sealers were subjected to the agar diffusion test (ADT), while the direct contact test (DCT) was performed after materials setting. ADT results were obtained through measurements, in millimeters, of the inhibition zones promoted by the materials, using a digital caliper. In DCT, values of CFU/mL promoted by the three sealers were compared in three experimental periods (1 min, 1 h, and 24 h). The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn post-hoc tests (p < 0.05). In both ADT and DCT, GuttaFlow 2 presented no effect against E. faecalis, while Endofill and AH Plus showed similar inhibition zones. Endofill was the only material capable of reducing bacterial growth in DCT. In conclusion, modifications in the silver particle of GuttaFlow 2 did not result in a sealer with antibacterial effect against E. faecalis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 2%
Unknown 53 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 10 19%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 26%