Antibacterial efficacy of peracetic acid in comparison with sodium hypochlorite or chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis and Parvimonas micra

Abstract

Background The main goal of an endodontic treatment is a complete debridement of the root canal system; however, currently mechanical shaping and chemical cleaning procedures for this purpose have deemed non-satisfactory. Methods The efficacy of peracetic acid (PAA; 0.5, 1.0, 2.0%), as a root canal irrigation solution, against Enterococcus faecalis (DSM 20478) and Parvimonas micra (DSM 20468) when compared with the one of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCI; 1.0, 3.0, 5.0%), chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX; 0.12, 0.2, 2.0%) and 0.9% NaCI (as a control solution) was in vitro investigated with the agar diffusion and direct contact methods. The inhibition zone diameters observed with the agar diffusion test were determined. The viable bacterial counts (CFU/ml) were calculated with the direct method. Results The agar diffusion test showed that all three root canal irrigation solutions had an efficacy against E. faecalis at all concentrations. The largest inhibition zone diameters against E. faecalis were observed with 5.0% NaOCI. At all three concentrations of PAA, NaOCI, and CHX, the inhibition zone diameter increased with increase in concentration. For P. micra, PAA had a similar inhibition zone diameter despite a concentration increase. In contrast, for NaOCI and CHX, the inhibition zone diameter increased with increasing concentration. 2.0% CHX produced the largest inhibition zone diameter against P. micra. For E. faecalis, only the comparison between 2.0% PAA and 5.0% NaOCI showed statistical significance (p = 0.004). For P. micra the efficacy comparison between the lowest, middle, and highest concentrations of each solution, a statistical significance (p < 0.05) was found for all three solutions. After direct contact with PAA, NaOCI and CHX, no viable bacteria could be determined for either P. micra or E. faecalis. Conclusions PAA had a similar antibacterial efficacy as the one of NaOCl and CHX when in direct contact with E. faecalis and P. micra. In the agar diffusion test, PAA showed a similar antibacterial efficacy as the one of CHX and a lower one as the one of NaOCl for E. faecalis.

Antibacterial Activity of Endodontic Gutta-Percha—A Systematic Review

“…The most significant antimicrobial effects are achieved when using gutta-percha with chlorhexidine, indicating the greatest reduction in bacterial cultures after contact with this substance. Study results indicated that chlorhexidine is effective against Enterococcus faecalis, a notion supported by numerous other studies demonstrating both the in vitro and in vivo effectiveness of this aspect [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. Furthermore, chlorhexidine exhibits biocidal activity against Gram-positive bacteria, and, if the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) is maintained, it can also inhibit Gram-negative bacteria.…”

Biocide Tolerance and Impact of Sanitizer Concentrations on the Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria Originating from Cheese

“…Briseño-Marroquín et al, (2022) [71], observed that PAA (0.5-2.0%) exerted large inhibition zones against E. faecalis and relatively small zones against Parvimonas micra. With This analysis reveals that the antimicrobial effects of some antibiotics are similar.…”

“…Briseño-Marroquín et al, (2022) [71], observed that PAA (0.5-2.0%) exerted large inhibition zones against E. faecalis and relatively small zones against Parvimonas micra. With decreasing concentration of 5.0, 3.0, and 1.0% of NaOCl, the diameters of the inhibition zones against E. faecalis also increased.…”

Effect of ethylenediaminetetraacetic, etidronic, and peracetic acids with different concentrations on the removal of Enterococcus faecalis biofilms from root canal walls: an in vitro study

“…There are research studies in the literature evaluating the effect of different irrigation protocols on the E.faecalis bio lms (16,23). However, there is limited knowledge regarding the effect of concentrations of the irrigation solutions on their antimicrobial capacity (24). In addition, there is no consensus about the in uence of interactions between the irrigants on eliminating bio lms from the root canal system.…”