In vitro evaluation by quantitative real-time PCR and culturing of the effectiveness of disinfection of multispecies biofilms in root canals by two irrigation systems
The purpose of this in vitro study was by using quantitative real-time PCR and culturing to determine the effectiveness of two irrigation and cleaning systems in removing multispecies oral biofilms from root canals.
Material and methods
Twenty extracted human molars were instrumented to size #15/.02 and then cleaned with the GentleWave (GW) System. The teeth were autoclaved to provide the same sterile baseline. The molars were filled with mixed plaque suspended in BHI and centrifuged to inoculate the biofilms. After 2 weeks of incubation, the teeth were randomly divided into two treatment groups. In GW group (26 canals), the teeth were further instrumented to size #15/04, and in PiezoFlow (PF) group (30 canals) to #35/.04. The teeth were then cleaned either with GW System or ProUltra PiezoFlow Active Ultrasonic System using 3% sodium hypochlorite NaOCl, 8% EDTA, and sterile water as irrigants. Samples (S1, S2, and S3) for bacterial cultures were taken from 13 canals before and after instrumentation and after final cleaning. Quantitative real-time PCR was performed from all 56 canals, and universal bacterial, one genus, and one species-specific primers were used to determine the presence of microorganisms in samples from root canals before and after instrumentation and after final cleaning. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test with the significance level set at P < 0.05.
Bacterial culturing from the canal samples revealed strong reduction of bacteria from S1 to S2 in both groups after instrumentation and irrigation with water only. No growth was detected in any of the S3 samples after cleaning in either group. A highly significant reduction in bacterial DNA was recorded by qPCR for both groups (P < 0.001). GW System showed more constant and a significantly higher reduction of total microbial DNA (P = 0.007), Enterococcus faecalis DNA (P = 0.011) and Streptococcus spp. DNA (P = 0.029) than the Ultrasonic System. The amount of residual microbial DNA calculated as an average of residual DNA in each individual canal in PF group was 1.99% and in GW group 0.09%.
While both systems demonstrated a highly effective reduction of intracanal bacterial DNA, the final total amount and variation in the number of residual bacterial DNA was significantly smaller in the GW group.
Elimination of microbes from the infected root canal system is regarded as the key for long-term clinical success. While both GentleWave and Ultrasonic Systems used with NaOCl and EDTA demonstrated a highly effective reduction of intracanal bacterial DNA; GW produced higher reduction and better predictability.
KeywordsBiofilm Disinfection GentleWave Quantitative real-time PCR Ultrasonic
Supported by the Canadian Academy of Endodontics, by start-up funds provided by the Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, and by Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI fund; project number 32623). CF-N acknowledges funding from the Ramon Areces Foundation. We thank prof. HsingChi von Bergmann, UBC, for valuable help in statistical analysis. We thank prof. Anil Kishen for providing the E. faecalis standard strain. One of the authors (MH) has commercial interest in one of the tested products.
This study was supported by the Canadian Academy of Endodontics, by start-up funds provided by the Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia and by Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI fund; project number 32623). CF-N acknowledges funding from the Ramon Areces Foundation.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
One of the authors (MH) consults to Sonendo Inc. (manufacturer of GW) and has economic interest in one of the products (GW) used in this study. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics permission was obtained from the University of British Columbia Office of Research Services, Clinical Research Ethics Board (certificate number H15-02793).
Informed consent was obtained from the volunteer providing oral plaque in this study. According to the Clinical Research Ethics Board, no informed consent was required from patients whose teeth, extracted for nonrelated reasons, were used in this study.
- 3.Balic M, Lucic R, Mehadzic K, Bago I, Anic I, Jakovljevic S, Plecko V (2016) The efficacy of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming and sonic-activated irrigation combined with QMiX solution or sodium hypochlorite against intracanal E. faecalis biofilm. Lasers Med Sci 31:335–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-015-1864-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Sigurdsson A, Le KT, Woo SM, Rassoulian SA, McLachlan K, Abbassi F, Garland RW (2016a) Six-month healing success rates after endodontic treatment using the novel GentleWave System: the pure prospective multi-center clinical study. J Clin Exp Dent 8:e290–e298. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.52779 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 11.Chu FC, Tsang CS, Chow TW, Samaranayake LP (2005) Identification of cultivable microorganisms from primary endodontic infections with exposed and unexposed pulp space. J Endod 31:424–429. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000148149.27636.9c CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Le Goff A, Bunetel L, Mouton C, Bonnaure-Mallet M (1997) Evaluation of root canal bacteria and their antimicrobial susceptibility in teeth with necrotic pulp. Oral Microbiol Immunol 12:318–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-302X.1997.tb00397.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Siqueira JF Jr, Rocas IN (2005) Exploiting molecular methods to explore endodontic infections: part 1—current molecular technologies for microbiological diagnosis. J Endod 31:411–423. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000157989.44949.26 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Castelo-Baz P, Varela-Patino P, Cantatore G, Dominguez-Perez A, Ruiz-Pinon M, Miguens-Vila R, Martin-Biedma B (2016) In vitro comparison of passive and continuous ultrasonic irrigation in curved root canals. J Clin Exp Dent 8:e437–e441. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.53023 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar