International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2022 ) > List of Articles


An In Vitro Study Comparing the Antimicrobial Efficacy of 0.2% Chitosan, 3% Sodium Hypochlorite, 2% Chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis, Alone and in Conjunction with Diode Laser

Pallavi Goel, Virat Galhotra, Sameer Makkar, Jatinder Mohan, Neetu Bala, Tamanpreet Kaur

Keywords : Antimicrobial efficacy, Chitosan, Chlorhexidine, Diode laser, Sodium hypochlorite

Citation Information : Goel P, Galhotra V, Makkar S, Mohan J, Bala N, Kaur T. An In Vitro Study Comparing the Antimicrobial Efficacy of 0.2% Chitosan, 3% Sodium Hypochlorite, 2% Chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis, Alone and in Conjunction with Diode Laser. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022; 15 (1):109-114.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2351

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-04-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


The aim and objective of this study was to compare the antimicrobial efficacy of 0.2% chitosan, 3% sodium hypochlorite, 2% chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis, alone and in conjunction with diode laser. Materials and methods: The root canals of 72 extracted intact human single-rooted teeth with single canals were prepared, and E. faecalis was incubated in the root canals for 7 days. The teeth were then randomly divided into the following four experimental groups: group I: Saline, group II: 0.2% Chitosan, group III: 3% Sodium hypochlorite, and group IV: 2% Chlorhexidine. These groups were further subdivided into three groups: (1) 10 mL irrigant only, (2) 10 mL irrigant, dried and irradiation with diode laser, (3) Diode laser was used for activation of irrigant solution. Samples were obtained from subgroups in each group and checked for turbidity. The effect of each irrigant was evaluated by counting the number of colony-forming units observed on inoculation with samples taken from the irrigated canal on bile esculin azide agar. The data thus obtained was recorded and put to statistical analysis. Results: Significant reductions were noted in E. faecalis colony counts in all groups (p < 0.05). The greatest reduction in colony count (0%) was noted in group IV followed by group II. Also, samples disinfected with diode laser after root canal irrigation showed less number of colony-forming units per mL as compared to the samples irrigated with root canal solutions alone or diode laser alone. Conclusion: Chitosan has the capability for use as an accessory for disinfection of the root canal system. The application of an 810-nm diode laser by itself did not have the adequate antimicrobial activity to be used as an adjunct in root canal therapy. Irradiation with diode laser ought to be used in conjunction with the irrigant to gain maximum antibacterial effect against E. faecalis.

  1. Gomes BP, Ferraz CC, Vianaa ME, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate in the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J 2001;34(6):424–428. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00410.x
  2. Fidalgo TK, Barcelos R, Portela MB, et al. Inhibitory activity of root canal irrigants against Candida albicans, Enterococcus faecalis and Staphylococcus aureus. Braz Oral Res 2010;24(4):406–412. DOI: 10.1590/s1806-83242010000400006
  3. Macedo RG, Wesselink PR, Zaccheo F, et al. Reaction rate of NaOCl in contact with bovine dentine: effect of activation, exposure time, concentration and pH. Int Endod J 2010;43(12):1108–1115. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01785.x
  4. Mohammadi Z. Chlorhexidine gluconate, its properties and applications in endodontics. Iran Endod J 2008;2(4):113–125.
  5. Suzuki S, Masuda Y, Morisaki H, et al. The study of chitosan-citrate solution as a root canal irrigant: a preliminary report. J Oral Hyg Health 2014;2:142. DOI: 10.4172/2332-0702.1000142
  6. Perochena DC, Bramante CM, Duarte MAH, et al. Chelating and antibacterial properties of chitosan nanoparticles on dentin. Restor Dent Endod 2015;40(3):195–201. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2015.40.3.195
  7. Silva PV, Guedes DFC, Nakadi FV, et al. Chitosan: a new solution for removal of smear layer after root canal instrumentation. Int Endod J 2013;46(4):332–338. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02119.x
  8. Gunwal M, Shenoi P. Evaluation of the efficacy of 5.25% of sodium hypochlorite, 2% of chlorhexidine, MTAD and 810 diode laser in reduction of microbial count in root canal - an in vivo study. J Endodontol 2013;25:56–62.
  9. Kreisler M, Kohnen W, Beck M, et al. Efficacy of NaOCI/H2O2 irrigation and GaAlAs laser in decontamination of root canals in vitro. Lasers Surg Med 2003;32(3):189–196. DOI: 10.1002/lsm.10148
  10. Camargo SCC. The antibacterial effects of lasers in endodontics. Roots 2012;1:6–21.
  11. Elakanti S, Cherukuri G, Rao VG, et al. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of QMix™ 2 in 1, sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans. J Conserv Dent 2015;18(2):128–131. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.153067
  12. Hedge V. Enterococcus faecalis; clinical significance and treatment considerations. Endodontology 2009;21:48–52.
  13. Jeansonne MJ, White RR. A comparison of 2.0% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite as antimicrobial endodontic irrigants. J Endod 1994;20(6):276–278. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(06)80815-0
  14. Berber VB, Gomes BP, Sena NT, et al. Efficacy of various concentrations of NaOCl and instrumentation techniques in reducing Enterococcus faecalis within root canals and dentinal tubules. Int Endod J 2006;39(1):10–17. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.01038.x
  15. Zhang K, Kim YK, Cadenaro M, et al. Effects of different exposure times and concentrations of sodium hypochlorite/ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid on the structural integrity of mineralized dentin. Endodontology 2010;36(1):105–109. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.10.020
  16. Gomes PFA, Vianna M, Zaia AA, et al. Chlorhexidine in endodontics. Braz Dent J 2013;24(2):89–102. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201302188
  17. Berástegui E, Molinos E, Ortega J. To comparison of standard and new chelating solutions in endodontics. J Dent Sci 2017;2(2):1–8. DOI: 10.23880/oajds-16000131
  18. Stevanovic M, Petrovska M, Stevanovic M, et al. Bactericidal effects of Er:YAG laser irradiation in root canals. J Oral Laser Appl 2004;4: 43–46.
  19. Asnaashari M, Godiny M, Azari-Marhabi S, et al. Comparison of the antibacterial effect of 810 nm diode laser and photodynamic therapy in reducing the microbial flora of root canal in endodontic retreatment in patients with periradicular lesions. J Lasers Med Sci 2016;7(2):99–104. DOI: 10.15171/jlms.2016.17
  20. Zohair AE, Fouad R. Synopsis is using dental diode laser in endodontic. EC Dent Sci 2016;5:1139–1144.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.