Rojas BME, Silva-Herzog FD, González AAM, Oliva RR

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 183-189
PDF size: 329.40 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Aim: To assess the antimicrobial capacity of an electrolyzed superoxide solution of neutral pH (OxOral^® Sterilizing) compared to a hydrogen peroxide-based solution (Sporox II^®). Material and methods: An E. faecalis biofilm was formed on 65 roots, each of which was treated using sets of K-Flexofile files; subsequently, 12 sets were immersed in each solution for the amount of time suggested by the manufacturers as that required to achieve sterilization: 15 min in the case of OxOral^® Sterilizing and six hours for Sporox II^®. The solutions were reused at 72 hours in order to check for changes in pH and any loss of antimicrobial capacity. The files were subsequently incubated in a thioglycollate culture medium with hemin and vitamin K for 48 hours at 37 °C. We then checked for the presence or absence of turbidity, determined the McFarland standard, and prepared the corresponding dilutions for inoculation in agar plates, incubated at 37 °C for 48 hours. Finally, the number of colony-forming units was determined. Results: OxOral^® Sterilizing displayed no antimicrobial effect on E. faecalis, whereas Sporox II^® was found to have a significant effect. Both solutions maintained a stable pH of 7 and 1 respectively after their reuse at 72 hours. Conclusion: When used for the time suggested by their manufacturers, Sporox II® was found to have a significant effect on E. faecalis, whereas OxOral^® Sterilizing was found to have no antimicrobial capacity.

REFERENCES

1. Flores MMA. Agua súper oxidada-Protocolo de Aplicación Odontológica; Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, Morelia Michoacán Noviembre 2003.

2. Información Técnica. Producto OxOral. Esteripharma Línea Odontológica.

3. Durán VHC. Super oxidized solutions and their technological evolution. Rev Dolor, Foro Nacional de Investigación y Clínica Médica. 2010; 7 (3): 3-8.

4. Cabello GC, Rosete ODP, Manjarrez ZME. Efecto de una solución electrolizada de superoxidación con pH neutro sobre la infección del virus de influenza A en células MDCK. Rev Inst Nal Enf Resp. 2009; 22: 280-287.

5. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Disinfection of endoscopes: review of new chemical sterilants used for high level disinfection. Infection Control Hospital Epidemiology. 1999; 20: 69-76.

6. Savariz A, González RMP, Ferrer LCM. Long-term sealing ability of GuttaFlow versus AH Plus using different obturation techniques. Med Oral Cir Bucal. 2012; 15 (6): e936-941.

7. Paranjpe A, Gregorio C, Gonzalez AM, Gómez A, Silva-Herzog D, Aragón PA. Efficacy of the self-adjusting file system on cleaning and shaping oval canals: a microbiological and microscopic evaluation. J Endod. 2012; 38 (2): 226-231.

8. Stuart CH, Schwartz SA, Beeson TJ, Owartz CB. Enterococcus faecalis: its role in root canal treatment failure and current concepts in retreatment. J Endod. 2006; 32 (2): 93-98.

9. Zaragoza MMTJ, López BLE, Rodríguez MD. Comparación del efecto antimicrobiano de dos soluciones esterilizantes de Superoxidación con pH neutro. Odontología Actual. 2012; 9 (110): 38-40.

10. Sattar SA, Taylor YE, Paquette M, Rubino J. In-hospital evaluation of 7.5% Hydrogen peroxide as a disinfectant for flexible endoscopes. Can J Infect Control. 1996; 11 (2): 51-54.