The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An in vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of irrigants on biofilms of root canal isolates
Abstract
Aim: The bactericidal effect of four antimicrobial agents was investigated against single‐species biofilms derived from a range of root canal isolates. Methodology: Single‐species biofilms of Prevotella intermedia, Peptostreptococcus micros, Streptococcus intermedius, Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterococcus faecalis were generated on membrane filter discs and subjected to 15 min or 1 h incubation with 5 p.p.m. colloidal silver, 2.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 0.2% chlorhexidine, 10% iodine or phosphate buffered saline (PBS) as a control. The antimicrobial activity of the agents was neutralized and the bacterial cells were harvested from the discs by vortexing, serially diluted in reduced transport fluid, plated on fastidious anaerobe agar containing 5% horse blood, incubated anaerobically and colony‐forming units calculated. Results: Iodine and NaOCl were more effective than chlorhexidine except against P. micros and P. intermedia where they were all 100% effective. Iodine and NaOCl elicited a 100% kill after 1 h incubation for all strains used. However, after 15 min, they showed differing bactericidal effects depending on the strain. None of the agents were effective against F. nucleatum after 15 min but NaOCl, iodine and chlorhexidine were all effective after 1 h. Colloidal silver was generally ineffective. Conclusions: The effectiveness of a particular agent was dependent on the nature of the organism in the biofilm and on the contact time. NaOCl was generally the most effective agent tested, followed by iodine. However the clinical efficacy of these agents must be considered in light of the complex root canal anatomy and polymicrobial nature of root canal infections.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: a review of the literature
Van Der Sluis, L. W. M., Versluis, M., Wu, M. K., & Wesselink, P. R. (2007) · International Endodontic Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01243.x · Cited by 849
Regenerative endodontics: a comprehensive review
Kim, S. G., Malek, M., Sigurdsson, A., Lin, L. M., & Kahler, B. (2018) · International Endodontic Journal · doi:10.1111/iej.12954 · Cited by 523
Redefining the Persistent Infection in Root Canals: Possible Role of Biofilm Communities
de Paz, L. C. (2007) · Journal of Endodontics · doi:10.1016/j.joen.2006.11.004 · Cited by 326
Wilson, M. (2004) · Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences · doi:10.1039/b211266c · Cited by 317
Self-citationSelection of antimicrobial agents in periodontal therapy
Slots, J. (2002) · Journal of Periodontal Research · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0765.2002.00004.x · Cited by 274
Metadata
- Authors
- Spratt, D. A., Pratten, J., Wilson, M., & Gulabivala, K.
- Venue
- International Endodontic Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-06
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 300-307
- ISSN
- 0143-2885 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2591
- OpenAlex
- W2114640854
- Cited by
- 241
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An in vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of irrigants on biofilms of root canal isolates. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00392.x
- The paper
- Spratt, D. A., Pratten, J., Wilson, M., & Gulabivala, K. (2001). An in vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of irrigants on biofilms of root canal isolates. International Endodontic Journal. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00392.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.