2017CureusOpen access

Comparison of the Antibacterial Efficacy of Alexidine and Chlorhexidine Against Enterococcus Faecalis: An in Vitro Study

Preethi Varadan, Arathi Ganesh, Rudra Konindala, Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu, Rupa Ashok, Deivanayagam Kandaswamy

Open full text 12 citations

Abstract

Introduction Root canal irrigants play an important role in reducing intracanal microorganisms, which in turn helps in achieving a successful outcome for the root canal treatment. Objective To compare the antibacterial efficacy of alexidine and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis. Methods A total of 50 extracted single-rooted teeth were randomly divided into five groups after being infected with Enterococcus faecalis. The groups were based on irrigants used: Group I - 0.4% alexidine; Group II - 1% alexidine; Group III - 1.5% percent alexidine; Group IV - 2% alexidine; Group V - 2% chlorhexidine. Following irrigation, colony-forming units were determined from the dentinal shavings collected at 400 µm depth. Results Use of 2% alexidine reduced the bacteria effectively when compared to 0.4%, 1%, and 1.5% alexidine. A statistically significant difference was not observed between 2% alexidine and 2% chlorhexidine. Discussion Alexidine, due to its higher virulence factors for bacteria and better bacterial penetrability at 400 µm depth of dentin showed better eradication of Enterococcus faecalis in comparison to chlorhexidine. Conclusion The use of 2% alexidine against Enterococcus faecalis at 400 µm depth of dentin has efficacy comparable to chlorhexidine. Hence, alexidine can be used as an alternative irrigant for chlorhexidine during endodontic procedures.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Introduction Root canal irrigants play an important role in reducing intracanal microorganisms, which in turn helps in achieving a successful outcome for the root canal treatment. Objective To compare the antibacterial efficacy of alexidine and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis. Methods A total of 50 extracted single-rooted teeth were randomly divided into five groups after being infected with Enterococcus faecalis. The groups were based on irrigants used: Group I - 0.4% alexidine; Group II - 1% alexidine; Group III - 1.5% percent alexidine; Group IV - 2% alexidine; Group V - 2% chlorhexidine. Following irrigation, colony-forming units were determined from the dentinal shavings collected at 400 µm depth. Results Use of 2% alexidine reduced the bacteria effectively when compared to 0.4%, 1%, and 1.5% alexidine. A statistically significant difference was not observed between 2% alexidine and 2% chlorhexidine. Discussion Alexidine, due to its higher virulence factors for bacteria and better bacterial penetrability at 400 µm depth of dentin showed better eradication of Enterococcus faecalis in comparison to chlorhexidine. Conclusion The use of 2% alexidine against Enterococcus faecalis at 400 µm depth of dentin has efficacy comparable to chlorhexidine. Hence, alexidine can be used as an alternative irrigant for chlorhexidine during endodontic procedures.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 12 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Introduction Root canal irrigants play an important role in reducing intracanal microorganisms, which in turn helps in achieving a successful outcome for the root canal treatment. Objective To compare the antibacterial efficacy of alexidine and chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis. Methods A total of 50 extracted single-rooted teeth were randomly divided into five groups after being infected with Enterococcus faecalis. The groups were based on irrigants used: Group I - 0.4% alexidine; Group II - 1% alexidine; Group III - 1.5% percent alexidine; Group IV - 2% alexidine; Group V - 2% chlorhexidine. Following irrigation, colony-forming units were determined from the dentinal shavings collected at 400 µm depth. Results Use of 2% alexidine reduced the bacteria effectively when compared to 0.4%, 1%, and 1.5% alexidine. A statistically significant difference was not observed between 2% alexidine and 2% chlorhexidine. Discussion Alexidine, due to its higher virulence factors for bacteria and better bacterial penetrability at 400 µm depth of dentin showed better eradication of Enterococcus faecalis in comparison to chlorhexidine. Conclusion The use of 2% alexidine against Enterococcus faecalis at 400 µm depth of dentin has efficacy comparable to chlorhexidine. Hence, alexidine can be used as an alternative irrigant for chlorhexidine during endodontic procedures.

Key concepts: Enterococcus faecalis, Chlorhexidine, Medicine, Root canal, Enterococcus, Dentistry, Dentin, Dentinal Tubule

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of the Antibacterial Efficacy of Alexidine and Chlorhexidine Against Enterococcus Faecalis: An in Vitro Study — Research Paper | ScholarLens