ASSESSMENT OF ANTIBACTERIAL EFFICACY OF DIFFERENT OBTURATION MATERIALS FOR PRIMARY TEETH (AN IN VITRO STUDY) | ||||
Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
Article 17, Volume 67, Issue 1 - January (Orthodontics, Pediatric & Preventive Dentistry), January 2021, Page 139-143 PDF (593.82 K) | ||||
Document Type: Original Article | ||||
DOI: 10.21608/edj.2020.52787.1403 | ||||
View on SCiNiTO | ||||
Authors | ||||
Hala Ibrahim 1; Nagwa Khattab2; Mina yassa 3 | ||||
1Dentist at Ministry of Health, B.D.S, Faculty of Dentistry, October University for Modern Sciences and Arts | ||||
2Professor in Pediatric Dentistry and Dental Public Health Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University. | ||||
3Lecturer in Pediatric and Community Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University. | ||||
Abstract | ||||
Background: A desirable property of an obturation material in primary teeth is its antibacterial effect, this property promotes the disinfection of the pulp canals and improve the prognosis of pulpectomy and treatment outcomes. Aim of the study: evaluation the antibacterial potential of various obturation materials for primary teeth; Zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) only, calcium hydroxide with iodoform (Metapex) and a mixture of zinc oxide eugenol, calcium hydroxide and iodoform (Endoflas) against selected strains of bacteria; Enterococcus faecalis and Bacteroid fragilis. Materials and Methods: Agar diffusion method was used in which the antibacterial potential was tested by measuring the inhibition zone around each tested obturating material. Results: (Endoflas) showed the highest mean value of inhibition zone, in both types of bacteria, over the (Zinc-oxide and Eugenol) and (Metapex). The difference between the three obturating materials was statistically significant. Conclusion: The three obturating materials reported different antibacterial effect however, Endoflas was superior to Metapex and ZOE. | ||||
Keywords | ||||
obturating materials; Pulpectomy; Endoflas; calcium hydroxide with iodoform | ||||
Statistics Article View: 521 PDF Download: 594 |
||||