Antibacterial Efficacy of Benefect™ Botanical Disinfectant in Comparison with Sodium Hypochlorite and Chlorohexidine Against Multiple Endodontic Pathogens: An Ex Vivo Study.

IF 3.1 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Dentistry Journal Pub Date : 2025-02-18 DOI:10.3390/dj13020087
Sarmed Toma, Joseph Ferracciolo, Mazin Askar, Eric Krukonis, Susan Paurazas
{"title":"Antibacterial Efficacy of Benefect™ Botanical Disinfectant in Comparison with Sodium Hypochlorite and Chlorohexidine Against Multiple Endodontic Pathogens: An Ex Vivo Study.","authors":"Sarmed Toma, Joseph Ferracciolo, Mazin Askar, Eric Krukonis, Susan Paurazas","doi":"10.3390/dj13020087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Natural antibacterial agents, such as essential oils, can potentially be used for endodontic disinfection with less toxicity than other available irrigants such as sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and chlorhexidine (CHX). Benefect<sup>TM</sup> is a formulation of essential oils with broad antibacterial spectrum efficacy. This study aims to compare the antibacterial efficacy of Benefect<sup>TM</sup> to 6% NaOCl and 2% CHX irrigant solutions against multiple endodontic pathogens. <b>Methods</b>: The study utilized 100 extracted human single-canal permanent teeth. Samples were decoronated, instrumented, and autoclaved. The teeth were infected with <i>Streptococcus mutans</i>, <i>Enterococcus faecalis</i>, <i>Actinomyces naeslundii</i>, or <i>Porphyromonas gingivalis</i> for 6-24 h. The teeth were divided into four groups according to the irrigant solution used. Contact with each irrigant was maintained for 12 min. The antibacterial efficacy of each treatment was calculated relative to viable bacteria recovered after saline treatment. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's <i>t</i>-test. <b>Results</b>: All <i>S. mutans</i> samples treated with NaOCl, CHX, and Benefect<sup>TM</sup> showed a complete absence of bacterial colonies when compared to saline (>99.9% killing). The <i>E. faecalis</i>, <i>A. naeslundii</i>, and <i>P. gingivalis</i> samples treated with all tested irrigants showed at least 99% antibacterial killing activity. There was no statistical difference in killing between these three antimicrobial treatments. <b>Conclusions</b>: Benefect<sup>TM</sup> botanical disinfectant has comparable antibacterial efficacy to NaOCl and CHX against <i>S. mutans</i>, <i>E. faecalis</i>, <i>A. naeslundii</i>, and <i>P. gingivalis</i>.</p>","PeriodicalId":11269,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Journal","volume":"13 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11854286/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13020087","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Natural antibacterial agents, such as essential oils, can potentially be used for endodontic disinfection with less toxicity than other available irrigants such as sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and chlorhexidine (CHX). BenefectTM is a formulation of essential oils with broad antibacterial spectrum efficacy. This study aims to compare the antibacterial efficacy of BenefectTM to 6% NaOCl and 2% CHX irrigant solutions against multiple endodontic pathogens. Methods: The study utilized 100 extracted human single-canal permanent teeth. Samples were decoronated, instrumented, and autoclaved. The teeth were infected with Streptococcus mutans, Enterococcus faecalis, Actinomyces naeslundii, or Porphyromonas gingivalis for 6-24 h. The teeth were divided into four groups according to the irrigant solution used. Contact with each irrigant was maintained for 12 min. The antibacterial efficacy of each treatment was calculated relative to viable bacteria recovered after saline treatment. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test. Results: All S. mutans samples treated with NaOCl, CHX, and BenefectTM showed a complete absence of bacterial colonies when compared to saline (>99.9% killing). The E. faecalis, A. naeslundii, and P. gingivalis samples treated with all tested irrigants showed at least 99% antibacterial killing activity. There was no statistical difference in killing between these three antimicrobial treatments. Conclusions: BenefectTM botanical disinfectant has comparable antibacterial efficacy to NaOCl and CHX against S. mutans, E. faecalis, A. naeslundii, and P. gingivalis.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
植物消毒剂与次氯酸钠和氯己定对多种牙髓病原体的抑菌效果比较:离体研究。
背景/目的:与次氯酸钠(NaOCl)和氯己定(CHX)等现有冲洗剂相比,精油等天然抗菌剂可潜在地用于根管消毒,其毒性更小。BenefectTM是一种具有广谱抗菌功效的精油配方。本研究旨在比较beneecttm与6% NaOCl和2% CHX冲洗液对多种牙髓病原体的抗菌效果。方法:使用100颗拔除的人单管恒牙。样品经过装饰、仪器和高压灭菌处理。牙齿感染变形链球菌、粪肠球菌、纳氏放线菌、牙龈卟啉单胞菌6 ~ 24 h。根据使用的冲洗液将牙齿分为4组。与每次冲洗液保持接触12分钟。计算每次冲洗液的抗菌效果,相对于盐水处理后恢复的活菌数。统计学分析采用Student’st检验。结果:与生理盐水相比,NaOCl、CHX和BenefectTM处理的所有变形链球菌样品显示完全没有细菌菌落(杀死率为99.9%)。用所有测试的冲洗液处理的粪肠杆菌、纳氏弓形虫和牙龈卟啉单胞杆菌样品显示出至少99%的抗菌杀灭活性。这三种抗菌素治疗在杀伤方面没有统计学差异。结论:植物消毒剂对变形链球菌、粪肠球菌、纳斯伦地单胞杆菌和牙龈链球菌的抑菌效果与NaOCl和CHX相当。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Dentistry Journal
Dentistry Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
213
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
Dental Adhesion Protocol: A Clinically Oriented Literature Review with Practical Guidelines. Dental Amalgam and Oral Biological Responses: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence. Three-Dimensional Displacement Patterns in Maxillary Molar Distalization: A Comparative Finite Element Study. Clinical Outcomes and Complications of Dental Implants Placed and Restored by AEGD Residents: Up to 10-Year Retrospective Study. Partial Ceramic Veneers as a Conservative Restorative Strategy: A Narrative Review with Case Report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1