These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Photodynamic therapy versus ultrasonic irrigation: interaction with endodontic microbial biofilm, an ex vivo study.
    Author: Muhammad OH, Chevalier M, Rocca JP, Brulat-Bouchard N, Medioni E.
    Journal: Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther; 2014 Jun; 11(2):171-81. PubMed ID: 24583092.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Photodynamic therapy was introduced as an adjuvant to conventional chemo-mechanical debridement during endodontic treatment to overcome the persistence of biofilms. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of photodynamic therapy (PDT) to disrupt an experimental microbial biofilm inside the root canal in a clinically applicable working time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty extracted teeth were prepared and then divided in three groups. All samples were infected with an artificially formed biofilm made of Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus salivarius, Porphyromonas gingivalis and Prevotella intermedia bacteria. First group was treated with Aseptim Plus® photo-activated (LED) disinfection system, second group by a 650 nm Diode Laser and Toluidine blue as photosensitizer, and the third group, as control group, by ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) using EDTA 17% and NaOCl 2.6% solutions. The working time for all three groups was fixed at 3 min. Presence or absence of biofilm was assessed by aerobic and anaerobic cultures. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between results obtained from groups treated by Aseptim Plus® and Diode Laser (P<0.6267). In cultures of both groups there was a maximal bacterial growth. The group that was treated by ultrasonic irrigation and NaOCl and EDTA solutions had the best results (P<0.0001): there was a statistically significant reduction of bacterial load and destruction of microbial biofilm. CONCLUSION: Under the condition of this study, Photodynamic therapy could not disrupt endodontic artificial microbial biofilm and could not inhibit bacterial growth in a clinically favorable working time.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]