Ömer HATİPOĞLU, Fatma PERTEK HATİPOĞLU, Banu ARICIOĞLU, İlkay BAHÇECİ

Enterococcus Faecalis Biyofilmlerinin OrtadanKaldırılmasında Er: YAG Yöntemlerinin (PIPS-SWEEPS)Karşılaştırılması

Amaç: İki yeni Er: YAG lazer modalitesi olan foton-indüklüfotoakustik dalgalanma (PIPS SSP) ve şok dalgası ilegeliştirilmiş emisyon fotoakustik akımının (SWEEPS AutoSWEEP) antimikrobiyal ajanlar (NaOCl ve klorheksidinglukonat) kullanılarak veya kullanılmadan E. faecalisuzaklaştırmadaki etkinliğinin belirlenmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Kırk iki ekstrakte tek köklü mandibularpremolar hazırlandı, sterilize edildi ve daha sonra 4 haftaboyunca E. faecalis ekimi yapıldı ve rastgele iki ana ve üç altgruba (n = 7) ayrıldı. Grup Ia (PIPS + distile su), Grup Ib (PIPS+% 5 NaOCl), Grup Ic (PIPS + CHX) ve Grup IIa (SWEEPS+distile su), Grup IIb (SWEEPS +% 5 NaOCl) ve Grup IIc(SWEEPS + CHX). 37 ° C'de 48 saat süreyle inkübasyonunardından, oluşan koloniler (CFU) sayıldı. Bulgular: PIPS SSP veya SWEEPS AutoSWEEPS yöntemleriile aktive edilen NaOCl ve CHX, her iki lazer aktivasyon metoduile aktive edilen distile sudan anlamlı şekilde daha yüksekindirgeme oranları gösterdi (p 0.05). Sonuç: Yeni lazer aktivasyon metod veya modülleri bile bakteriyükünü yeterince azaltmak için tek başına yeterli değildir. Enetkili mikrobiyal eliminasyon için lazer aktivasyonunantimikrobiyal ajanlar ile birlikte kullanılması gerekmektedir.Konik 600μm uçla uygulanan yeni SWEEPS AutoSWEEPSmodalitesi, PIPS SSP’e kıyasla artan bir etkinlik göstermedi.Daha küçük fiber uç kullanımı, minimal invaziv giriş kavitesi vepreperasyonlarda uygulamaların başarısını artırabilir.

Comparison of Er:YAG Modalities (PIPS-SWEEPS) onEliminating of Enterococcus Faecalis Populations

Background: To determine the effectiveness of novel two Er:YAGlasers modalities, photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming(PIPSSSP) and shock wave-enhanced emission photoacousticstreaming (SWEEPSAutoSWEEPS) in terms of removalEnterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) with or without antimicrobialagents [Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and chlorhexidine gluconate(CHX)]. Methods: Forty-two extracted single-rooted mandibular premolarswere prepared, sterilized, and then inoculated with E. faecalis for 4weeks, and randomly divided into to two main and three subgroups(n= 7). Group Ia ( PIPS + distilled water), Group Ib (PIPS + 5%NaOCl), Group Ic (PIPS + CHX), and Group IIa (SWEEPS + distilledwater), Group IIb (SWEEPS + 5% NaOCl), and Group IIc (SWEEPS+ CHX). Following incubation for 48 hours at 37°C, the colonyforming units (CFU) were counted. Results: NaOCl and CHX activated with PIPSSSP orSWEEPSAutoSWEEPS modalities showed significantly higherreduction rates than distilled water activated with both laser activated methods (p0.05). Conclusion: Even novel laser activation methods or modalities arenot sufficient alone to adequately reduce bacterial load and usingantimicrobial agents with laser activation is necessary for the bestreduction for microbial elimination. Novel SWEEPSAutoSWEEPSmodalıty with the conical 600μm tip showed no increased efficacycompared with PIPSSSP mode. Besides, smaller fiber tip mayincrease the success of applications for minimally invasive accesscavities and preparation.

PDF

___

1. Siqueira Jr JF. Aetiology of root canal treatment failure: why well‐treated teeth can fail. International endodontic journal. 2001; 34: 1-10.
2. George S, Kishen A and Song P. The role of environmental changes on monospecies biofilm formation on root canal wall by Enterococcus faecalis. Journal of endodontics. 2005; 31: 867-72.
3. Distel JW, Hatton JF and Gillespie MJ. Biofilm formation in medicated root canals. Journal of endodontics. 2002; 28: 689-93.
4. Sundqvist G, Figdor D, Persson S and Sjögren U. Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative re-treatment. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 1998; 85: 86-93.
5. Gordon W, Atabakhsh VA, Meza F, et al. The antimicrobial efficacy of the erbium, chromium: yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser with radial emitting tips on root canal dentin walls infected with Enterococcus faecalis. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2007; 138: 992- 1002.
6. Hatipoğlu FP, Hatipoğlu Ö and ARICIOĞLU B. Türk Dişhekimlerinin Endodontik Tedavi Prosedürlerindeki Yaklaşımlarının İncelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020; 11: 54-64.
7. Blanken J, De Moor RJG, Meire M and Verdaasdonk R. Laser induced explosive vapor and cavitation resulting in effective irrigation of the root canal. Part 1: a visualization study. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine: The Official Journal of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. 2009; 41: 514-9.
8. Gomes B, Ferraz C, Berber V, Teixeira F and Souza‐Filho F. In vitro antimicrobial activity of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate in the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis. International endodontic journal. 2001; 34: 424-8.
9. Gu L-s, Kim JR, Ling J, Choi KK, Pashley DH and Tay FR. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. Journal of endodontics. 2009; 35: 791-804.
10.Yasuda Y, Kawamorita T, Yamaguchi H and Saito T. Bactericidal effect of Nd: YAG and Er: YAG lasers in experimentally infected curved root canals. Photomedicine and laser surgery. 2010; 28: S-75-S-8.
11.DiVito E and Lloyd A. ER: YAG laser for 3- dimensional debridement of canal systems: use of photon-induced photoacoustic streaming. Dentistry today. 2012; 31: 122, 4-7.
12.Lukac N, Muc BT, Jezersek M and Lukac M. Photoacoustic endodontics using the novel SWEEPS Er: YAG laser modality. J Laser Health Acad. 2017; 1: 1-7.
13.Aydin SA, Taşdemir T, Buruk CK and Çelik D. Efficacy of Erbium, Chromium-doped Yttrium, Scandium, Gallium and Garnet Laser-activated Irrigation Compared with Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation, Conventional Irrigation, and Photodynamic Therapy against Enterococcus faecalis. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2020; 21: 12.
14.Balić M, Lucić R, Mehadžić K, et al. The efficacy of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming and sonicactivated irrigation combined with QMiX solution or sodium hypochlorite against intracanal E. faecalis biofilm. 2016; 31: 335-42.
15.Rödig T, ZimmermannF KF, Sydow H and Wiegand AJQI. Comparison of the antibacterial efficacy of sonic-and two ultrasonic-activated irrigation techniques in reducing intracanal Enterococcus faecalis populations. 2018; 49: 689-97.
16.Jezeršek M, Jereb T, Lukač N, Tenyi A, Lukač M and Fidler A. Evaluation of Apical Extrusion During Novel Er: YAG Laser-Activated Irrigation Modality. Photobiomodulation, photomedicine, and laser surgery. 2019; 37: 544-50.
17.Sood S, Malhotra M, Das B and Kapil A. Enterococcal infections & antimicrobial resistance. Indian Journal of Medical Research. 2008; 128: 111.
18.Sirtes G, Waltimo T, Schaetzle M and Zehnder M. The effects of temperature on sodium hypochlorite shortterm stability, pulp dissolution capacity, and antimicrobial efficacy. Journal of Endodontics. 2005; 31: 669-71.
19.Siqueira Jr JF, Rôças IN, Paiva SS, Guimarães-Pinto T, Magalhães KM and Lima KC. Bacteriologic investigation of the effects of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine during the endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2007; 104: 122-30.
20.Ferraz CC, Gomes BP, Zaia AA, Teixeira FB and Souza-Filho FJ. Comparative study of the antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine gel, chlorhexidine solution and sodium hypochlorite as endodontic irrigants. Brazilian dental journal. 2007; 18: 294-8.
21.Sahar-Helft S, Stabholtz A, Moshonov J, Gutkin V, Redenski I and Steinberg D. Effect of Er: YAG laseractivated irrigation solution on Enterococcus faecalis biofilm in an ex-vivo root canal model. Photomedicine and laser surgery. 2013; 31: 334-41.
22.Cheng X, Chen B, Qiu J, et al. Bactericidal effect of Er: YAG laser combined with sodium hypochlorite irrigation against Enterococcus faecalis deep inside dentinal tubules in experimentally infected root canals. Journal of medical microbiology. 2016; 65: 176-87.
23.Cheng X, Guan S, Lu H, et al. Evaluation of the bactericidal effect of Nd: YAG, Er: YAG, Er, Cr: YSGG laser radiation, and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in experimentally infected root canals. Lasers in surgery and medicine. 2012; 44: 824-31.
24.Meire M, De Prijck K, Coenye T, Nelis H and De Moor R. Effectiveness of different laser systems to kill Enterococcus faecalis in aqueous suspension and in an infected tooth model. International Endodontic Journal. 2009; 42: 351-9.
25.Matsumoto H, Yoshimine Y and Akamine A. Visualization of irrigant flow and cavitation induced by Er: YAG laser within a root canal model. Journal of endodontics. 2011; 37: 839-43.
26.Lukac N, Lukac M and Jezersek M. QSP Mode Characteristics of 3rd Generation ASP Powered Er: YAG Dental Lasers, J. LA&HA-J Laser Health Acad. 2016; 2016: 1-5.
27.Galler K, Grubmüller V, Schlichting R, et al. Penetration depth of irrigants into root dentine after sonic, ultrasonic and photoacoustic activation. International endodontic journal. 2019.
28.Ivanusic T, Lukac M, Lukac N and Jezersek M. SSP/SWEEPS Endodontics with the SkyPulse Er: YAG Dental Laser.
29.Mohammadi Z. Sodium hypochlorite in endodontics: an update review. International dental journal. 2008; 58: 329-41.
30.Macedo R, Wesselink P, Zaccheo F, Fanali D and Van Der Sluis L. Reaction rate of NaOCl in contact with bovine dentine: effect of activation, exposure time, concentration and pH. International Endodontic Journal. 2010; 43: 1108-15.
31.Sahar-Helft S, Slutzky-Goldberg I, Moshonov J, et al. Synergistic effect of Er: YAG laser irradiation in combination with chlorhexidine on the viability of Enterococcus faecalis: an in vitro study. Photomedicine and laser surgery. 2011; 29: 753-8.
32.DiVito E, Peters OA and Olivi G. Effectiveness of the erbium: YAG laser and new design radial and stripped tips in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation. Lasers in medical science. 2012; 27: 273-80.
33.Pedulla E, Genovese C, Campagna E, Tempera G and Rapisarda E. Decontamination efficacy of photon‐initiated photoacoustic streaming (PIPS) of irrigants using low‐energy laser settings: an ex vivo study. International endodontic journal. 2012; 45: 865-70.
34.Seet AN, Zilm PS, Gully NJ and Cathro PR. Qualitative comparison of sonic or laser energisation of 4% sodium hypochlorite on an Enterococcus faecalis biofilm grown in vitro. Australian Endodontic Journal. 2012; 38: 100-6.
35.Gulabivala K, Stock C, Lewsey J, Ghori S, Ng YL and Spratt D. Effectiveness of electrochemically activated water as an irrigant in an infected tooth model. International endodontic journal. 2004; 37: 624-31.
36.Koçak S, Koçak MM, Sağlam BC and Aktaş E. Efficacy of three irrigation agitation techniques on bacterial elimination: a microbiologic and microscopic evaluation. Scanning: The Journal of Scanning Microscopies. 2014; 36: 512-6.
37.Agrawal V, Rao M, Dhingra K, Gopal VR, Mohapatra A and Mohapatra A. An in vitro comparison of antimicrobial effcacy of three root canal irrigantsBioPure MTAD, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite as a final rinse against E. faecalis. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013; 14: 842-7.
38.Deplazes P, Peters O and Barbakow F. Comparing Apical Preparations of Root Canals Shaped by Nickel-Titanium Rotary Instruments and Nickel– Titanium Hand Instruments. Journal of endodontics. 2001; 27: 196-202.