Antimicrobial Activity Evaluation of Cetylpyridinium Chloride -Chlorhexidine Combination Versus Different Types of Endodontic Irrigants
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32828/mdj.v21i2.1036Keywords:
Cetylpyridinium chloride, surfactant, chlorhexidine, MTAD, direct contact, Antimicrobial effectsAbstract
Aim: This study aims to compare the antimicrobial activity of Cetylpyridinium Chloride- Chlorhexidine combination with that of Chlorhexidine (CHX) and MTAD irrigants on different microorganisms
Method: The direct contact test was used to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of three irrigants (2% CHX, 2% CHX + 0.2% Cetylpyridinium chloride surfactant (CPC), and 100% Biopure MTAD) against E. faecalis, S. aureus, and C. albicans. The antimicrobial activity was assessed after a 5-minute contact time between the microbial suspension and different irrigant solutions. Then 10 µl of the treated suspension was cultured and incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. The results were expressed as the kill percentage of viable microbe. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test and Multiple Wilcoxon sum rank test.
Result: No statistically significant differences were observed in the killing percentages of CHX, CHX+CPC, and MTAD on E. faecalis and S. aureus (p > 0.05). Against C. albicans subgroups, both CHX and CHX +CPC were statistically more efficient than MTAD, while CHX and CHX+CPC were equally effective.
Conclusion: After 5 minutes of contact time, all the used irrigants have similar antimicrobial activity against E. faecalis and S. aureus. CHX+CPC and CHX exhibit more antimicrobial activity than MTAD against C. albicans.
References
1. Wong J, Manoil D, Näsman P, Belibasakis GN, Neelakantan P. Microbiological Aspects of Root Canal Infections and Disinfection Strategies: An Update Review on the Current Knowledge and Challenges. Front Oral Health. 2021; 2:672887.
2. Mohammadi Z, Abbott PV. The properties and applications of chlorhexidine in endodontics. Int Endod J. 2009;42(4):288–302.
3. Xu J, Gao Y, Meng Y, Wu W, Tsauo C, Guo T, et al. Mechano-chemical coupling of irrigation enhances endodontic biofilm debridement. Biofouling. 2020; 36:792–799.
4. Yeung W, Raldi DP, Cunha RS, Mello I. Assessment of smear layer removal protocols in curved root canal. Aust Endod J. 2014; 40(2): 66 -71.
5. De Andrade FB, Arias MPC, Maliza AGA. Anew improved protocol for in vitro intra tubular dentinal bacterial contamination for antimicrobial endodontic test: standardization and validation by confocal laser scanning microscopy. J App/oral Sci: 2015; 23(6):591-8
6. Nirupama DN, Nainan MT, Ramaswamy R, Muralidharan S, Usha HH, Sharma R, Gupta S. In Vitro Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Efficacy of Four Endodontic Biomaterials against Enterococcus faecalis, Candida albicans, and Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Biomater. 2014; 2014: 383756.
7. Ghivari SB, Bhattacharya H, Bhat KG, Pujar MA. Antimicrobial activity of root canal irrigants against biofilm forming pathogens- An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2017;20(3):147-151.
8. Gomes BPFA, Aveiro E, Kishen A. Irrigants and irrigation activation systems in Endodontics. Braz Dent J. 2023;34(4):1-33.
9. Dutner J, Mines P, Anderson A. Irrigation trends among American Association of Endodontists members: a web-based survey. J Endod. 2012;38(1):37-40.
10. Karpiński TM, Szkaradkiewicz AK. Chlorhexidine--pharmaco-biological activity and application. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015;19(7):1321-1326.
11. Thirunarayanan S, Hegde MN. Value addition property of a cationic surfactant on endodontic irrigant: A confocal laser scanning microscope study. J Conserv Dent. 2022;25(4):380-384.
12. Lopes HP, De Faria AR, Alves FR, Elias CN. Wettability of irrigants used in root canal treatment. Dentistry. 2015; 5:1.
13. Ravinanthanan M, Hegde MN, Shetty V, Kumari S, Al Qahtani FN. A Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Novel Surfactant-Based Endodontic Irrigant Regimen's on Enterococcus faecalis. Contemp Clin Dent. 2022;13(3):205-210.
14. Srikumar GP, Sekhar KS, Nischith KG. Mixture tetracycline citric acid and detergent - A root canal irrigant. A review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2013;3(1):31-35.
15. Hoang TPN, Ghori MU, Conway BR. Topical antiseptic formulations for skin and soft tissue infections. Pharmaceutics. 2021; 13:558.
16. Ravinanthanan M, Hegde MN, Shetty VA, Kumari S. Antimicrobial assay of combination surfactant irrigant regimen on vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis. An in vitro direct contact test. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2018;15(6):397-403.
17. Goud S, Aravelli S, Dronamraju S, Cherukuri G, Morishetty P. Comparative Evaluation of the Antibacterial Efficacy of Aloe Vera, 3% Sodium Hypochlorite, and 2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate Against Enterococcus faecalis: An In Vitro Study. Cureus. 2018;10(10): e3480.
18. Prada I, Micó-Muñoz P, Giner-Lluesma T, Micó-Martínez P, Muwaquet-Rodríguez S, Albero-Monteagudo A. Update of the therapeutic planning of irrigation and intracanal medication in root canal treatment. A literature reviews. J Clin Exp Dent. 2019;11(2): e185-e193.
19. Rossi-Fedele G, Prichard JW, Steier L, de Figueiredo JA. The effect of surface tension reduction on the clinical performance of sodium hypochlorite in endodontics. Int Endod J. 2013;46(6):492-8
20. Ravinanthanan M, Hegde MN, Shetty VA, Kumari S. Critical concentrations of surfactant combination regimens with MTAD™ on vancomycin-sensitive Enterococcus faecalis. BBRJ. 2017; 1(2): 124-128.
21. Kamberi B, Bajrami D, Stavileci M, Omeragiq S, Dragidella F, Koçani F, et al. The antibacterial efficacy of Biopure MTAD in root canal contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis. ISRN Dent 2012:390526.
22. Agrawal V, Rao MR, Dhingra K, Gopal VR, Mohapatra A, Mohapatra A. An in vitro comparison of antimicrobial effcacy of three root canal irrigants-BioPure MTAD, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite as a final rinse against E. faecalis. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14(5):842-847.
23. Sharaf NF, Alshareef WA. The Comparative Evaluation of the Post-Antimicrobial Effect of MTAD ® and 2% Chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis of Permanent Teeth with Necrotic Pulp. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019;7(19):3270-3275
24. Kho P, Baumgartner JC. A comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of NaOCl/Biopure MTAD versus NaOCl/EDTA against Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod. 2006; 32:652–5.
25. Portenier I, Waltimo T, Ørstavik D, Haapasalo M. Killing of E. faecalis by MTAD and Chlorhexidine digluconate with or without cetrimide in the presence or absence of dentin powder or BSA. J Endod. 2006; 32:138–41.
26. Kim GR, Kim SH, Kim E-Y, Park EH, Hwang IY, Jeong SH, Kim HS, Kim YA, Uh Y, Shin KS, et al. Performance of MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry (VITEK MS) in the Identification of Salmonella Species. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(10):1974.
27. Ji M, Chi Y, Wang Y. et al. An in vitro evaluation of antimicrobial activity of a fast-setting endodontic material. Sci Rep. 2022; 12, 16021.
28. Luddin N, Ahmed HM. The antibacterial activity of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis: A review on agar diffusion and direct contact methods. J Conserv Dent. 2013;16(1):9-16.
29. Paunovska ML, Coleman NJ, Stevanovic MM, Dimkov AG, Gabric D, Gjorgievska ES. Effects of Addition of Quaternary Ammonium Antimicrobial Compounds into Root Canal Sealers. Eur J Dent. 2019;13(2):243-247
30. Mohammadi Z. Effects of Root Canal Irrigants On The Planktonic Form Of Enterococcus Faecalis: A Review. Niger J Med. 2015;24(3):261-7.
31. Ozkan HB, Cobankara FK, Sayin Z, Ozer F. Evaluation of the Antibacterial Effects of Single and Combined use of Different Irrigation Solutions Against Intracanal Enterococcus Faecalis. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2020;54(3):250-262.
32. Mattigatti S, Ratnakar P, Moturi S, Varma S, Rairam S. Antimicrobial effect of conventional root canal medicaments vs propolis against Enterococcus faecalis, Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2012;13(3):305-9.
33. Misuriya A, Bhardwaj A, Bhardwaj A, Aggrawal S, Kumar PP, Gajjarepu S. A comparative antimicrobial analysis of various root canal irrigating solutions on endodontic pathogens: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2014;15(2):153-60.
34. Estrela C, Sousa-Neto MD, Alves DR, Alencar AH, Santos TO, Pécora JD. A preliminary study of the antibacterial potential of cetylpyridinium chloride in root canals infected by E. faecalis. Braz Dent J. 2012;23(6):645-53.
35. Becker K, Brunello G, Scotti L, Drescher D, John G. Efficacy of 0.05% Chlorhexidine and 0.05% Cetylpyridinium Chloride Mouthwash to Eliminate Living Bacteria on In Situ Collected Biofilms: An In Vitro Study. Antibiotics (Basel). 2021;10(6):730.
36. García-Gargallo M, Zurlohe M, Montero E, Alonso B, Serrano J, Sanz M, Herrera D. Evaluation of new chlorhexidine- and cetylpyridinium chloride-based mouthrinse formulations adjunctive to scaling and root planing: pilot study. Int J Dent Hyg. 2017;15(4):269-279.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Hiba Al-Sada, Hikmet A. Al-Gharrawi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Articles of this journal are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution International Public License CC-BY 4.0 that licensees are unrestricted to search, download, share, distribute, print, or link to the full texts of the articles; crawl them for indexing; and reproduce any medium of the articles provided that they give the author(s) proper credit (citation). The journal allows the author(s) to retain the copyright of their published article.
