International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Assessment of the Antimicrobial Efficacy of Triclosan, Amoxicillin and Eugenol against Enterococcus faecalis

Jagadish Gowda, Ananda Tavarageri, Raghavendra Kulkarni, Rajesh T Anegundi, Apoorva Janardhan, Manohara A Bhat

Keywords : Amoxicillin, Double dilution method, Eugenol, Modified checkerboard method, Triclosan

Citation Information : Gowda J, Tavarageri A, Kulkarni R, Anegundi RT, Janardhan A, Bhat MA. Comparative Assessment of the Antimicrobial Efficacy of Triclosan, Amoxicillin and Eugenol against Enterococcus faecalis. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021; 14 (1):59-62.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1869

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-07-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aims: Elimination of microorganisms and prevention of recurrence of infection from the complex root canal system of primary teeth requires an obturating material with broad antimicrobial activity. Hence, the purpose of the study is to assess and compare the antimicrobial efficacy of Triclosan, Amoxicillin and Eugenol individually and in combinations against a resistant microorganism viz., Enterococcus faecalis. Materials and methods: A two-fold serial dilution method was used to check the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of triclosan, amoxicillin and eugenol against thirty E. faecalis (isolated from oral lesions). The resistant strains were subjected to different combinations of three agents by modified checkerboard method. MIC was determined after incubation for 24 hours at 370°C. Then the three dilutions from MIC were inoculated on BHI agar plates and incubated overnight to determine minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC). Results: The mean MIC and MBC of triclosan was 3.43 μg/mL and 3.75 μg/mL respectively. Whereas for amoxicillin, it was 3.43 μg/mL and 3.85 μg/mL. Eugenol did not show any inhibition up to a concentration of 3200 μg/mL. In combination, eugenol showed good synergistic effect with both triclosan and amoxicillin. In combination with triclosan, eugenol showed much promising result as compared with amoxicillin. But triclosan and amoxicillin combination showed inhibition at higher concentrations. Conclusion: Triclosan and eugenol combination showed better effectiveness against E. faecalis in comparison to amoxicillin and eugenol. Triclosan and amoxicillin showed antagonism when used in combination against E. faecalis.

PDF Share
  1. Bystrom A, Sundqvist G. Bacteriologic evaluation of the efficacy of mechanical root canal instrumentation in endodontic therapy. Scand J Dent Res 1981;89(4):321–328. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1981.tb01689.x.
  2. Peciuliene V, Reynaud AH, Balciuniene I, et al. Isolation of yeasts and enteric bacteria in root filled teeth with chronic apical periodontitis. Int Endod J 2001;34(6):429–434. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00411.x.
  3. Sundqvist G, Figdor D, Persson S, et al. Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative re-treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;85(1):86–93. DOI: 10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90404-8.
  4. Siqueira Jr JF, Gonçalves RB. Antibacterial activities of root canal sealers against selected anaerobic bacteria. J Endod 1996;22(2):79–80. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80277-9.
  5. Hashieh IA, Ponnmel L, Camps J. Concentration of eugenol apically released from ZnO E based sealers. J Endod 1999;22(11):713–715. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80114-9.
  6. Hoelscher AA, Bahcall JK, Maki JS. In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial effects of a root canal sealer-antibiotic combination against Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod 2006;32(2):145–147. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.031.
  7. Goodson J. pharmacokinetic principles controlling efficacy of oral therapy. J Dent Res 1989;68:1632–1652.
  8. Gaffar A, Afflitto J, Nabi N, et al. Recent advances in plaque, gingivitis, tartar and caries prevention technology. Int Dent J 1994;44:63–70.
  9. Volpe AR, Petrone ME, Prencipe M, et al. The efficacy of a toothpaste with caries, plaque, gingivitis, tooth whitening and oral malodor benefits. J Clin Dent 2002;13:55–94.
  10. Nudera WJ, Fayad MI, Johnson BR, et al. Antimicrobial effect of triclosan and triclosan with Gantrez on five common endodontic pathogens. J Endod 2007;33(10):1239–1242. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.06.009.
  11. Pinheiro ET, Gomes BPFA, Drucker DB, et al. Antimicrobial susceptibility of Enterococcus faecalis isolated from canals of root filled teeth with periapical lesions. Int Endod J 2004;37(11):756–763. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00865.x.
  12. Sedgley CM, Lennan SL, Clewell DB. Prevalence, phenotype and genotype of oral enterococci. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2004;19(2): 95–101. DOI: 10.1111/j.0902-0055.2004.00122.x.
  13. Jones RD, Jampani HB, Newman JL, et al. Triclosan: a review of effectiveness and safety in health care settings. Am J Infect Control 2000;28(2):184–196. DOI: 10.1067/mic.2000.102378.
  14. Leonardo MR, Silva LAB, Tanomaru Filho M, et al. In vitro evaluation of antimicrobial activity of sealers and pastes used in endodontics. J Endod 2000;26(7):391–394. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200007000-00003.
  15. Mickel AK, Nguyen TH, Chogle S. Antimicrobial activity of endodontic sealers on Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod 2003;29(4):257–258. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200304000-00006.
  16. Savioli RN, Pecora JD, Mian H, et al. Evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of each component in Grossman's sealer. Braz Oral Res 2006;20(2):127–131. DOI: 10.1590/S1806-83242006000 200007.
  17. Reddy S, Ramakrishna Y. Evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of various root canal filling materials used in primary teeth: a microbiological study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2007;31(3):193–198. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.31.3.t73r4061424j2578.
  18. Koburger T, Hubner N, Braun M, et al. Standardized comparison of antiseptic efficacy of triclosan, PVP-iodine, octanidine dihydrochloride, polyhexanide and chlorhexidine digluconate. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010;65(8):1712–1719. DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkq212.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.