Next Article in Journal
Nanoscale Polishing Technique of Biomedical Grade NiTi Wire by Advanced MAF Process: Relationship between Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Intracoronal Sealing Biomaterials on the Histological Outcome of Endodontic Revitalisation in Immature Sheep Teeth—A Pilot Study
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
A New Mass Spectroscopy-Based Method for Assessing the Periodontal–Endodontic Interface after Intracanal Placement of Biomaterials In Vitro
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JFB
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/jfb14040176
jfb-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Efficacy of Endodontic Disinfection Protocols in an E. faecalis Biofilm Model—Using DAPI Staining and SEM

by
Maria Dede
1,2,*,
Sabine Basche
1,
Jörg Neunzehn
3,
Martin Dannemann
4,
Christian Hannig
1 and
Marie-Theres Kühne
1,*
1
Policlinic of Operative and Pediatric Dentistry, Medical Faculty Carl Gustav Carus, TU Dresden, 01307 Dresden, Germany
2
Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece
3
Vertriebsgesellschaft GmbH, Geistlich Biomaterials, Schneidweg 5, 76534 Baden-Baden, Germany
4
Faculty of Automotive Engineering, Institute of Energy and Transport Engineering, Westsächsische Hochschule Zwickau, 08056 Zwickau, Germany
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14(4), 176; https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14040176
Submission received: 26 February 2023 / Revised: 15 March 2023 / Accepted: 21 March 2023 / Published: 23 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Materials for Clinical Endodontic Applications)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to investigate the antimicrobial efficacy of different disinfection protocols in a novel Enterococcus faecalis biofilm model based on a visualization method and to evaluate the potential alteration of dentinal surface. A total of 120 extracted human premolars were allocated to 6 groups with different irrigation protocols. The assessment of the effectiveness of each protocol and the alteration of dentinal surface were visualized by using SEM and fluorescence microscopy (DAPI). A dense E. faecalis biofilm with a penetration depth of 289 μm (medial part of the root canal) and 93 μm (apical part) validated that the biofilm model had been successfully implemented. A significant difference between the 3% NaOCl groups and all the other groups in both observed parts of the root canal (p < 0.05) was detected. However, the SEM analysis revealed that the dentinal surface in the 3% NaOCl groups was severely altered. The established biofilm model and the visualization method based on DAPI are appropriate for bacterial quantification and evaluation of the depth effect of different disinfection protocols in the root canal system. The combination of 3% NaOCl with 20% EDTA or MTAD with PUI allows the decontamination of deeper dentine zones within the root canal but simultaneously alters the dentinal surface.

1. Introduction

The goal of an endodontic treatment should be the elimination of microorganisms and the prevention of a possible reinfection. A successful root canal therapy relies on the combination of proper instrumentation, irrigation, and obturation of the root canal system. The etiology behind endodontic treatment failures is mainly a persisting infection with a biofilm structure in the root canal system [1]. Unfortunately, the root canal system with its anatomical complexity represents a challenging environment for the effective removal of bacteria and biofilm [2]. A plethora of chemical irrigants activated by different technical devices are used to eliminate residual microbes in root canals [2,3]. One of the most common techniques is passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) [4,5,6].
A microorganism that has been intimately associated with treatment failures is Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) [7,8]. The reported prevalence of E. faecalis ranges from 24% to 77% in post-treatment root canal infections [9]. To date, it is still not possible to explain this prevalence since the origin of E. faecalis infections remains unknown. Since its first description in 1906, it is termed Streptococcus faecalis or “Streptococcus of faecal origin” as it has often been recovered from fecal matter or sewage [10]. It is both a commensal pathogen of the gastro-intestinal tract and a common nosocomial pathogen. Its transition from commensal to pathogenic is far from being completely understood. E. faecalis is most likely not derived from the endogenous flora or from nosocomial transmission but is instead a food-borne pathogen in root canal infections [11]. However, E. faecalis is considered a suitable model for studying bacterial infections in root canals [12], specifically in in vitro studies.
Extensive research has been accomplished in the field with regard to bacterial reduction of biofilm within the root canal system [13,14]. However, there are limited studies that compared the synergistic effects of passive ultrasonic irrigation with different irrigants against E. faecalis biofilm in the root canal system, as well as their effects on the dentinal root canal surface. The use of passive ultrasonic irrigation has been limited to endodontic irrigants, such as NaOCl and EDTA, and its use over CHX or MTAD (mixture of tetracycline, acid, and detergent), whereas the combination of different irrigants has not been studied in detail [6,15].
Microscopic techniques have been used for the evaluation of the effects of various endodontic irrigants on biofilms [16,17]. The dentinal root canal surface was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) in this study. Fluorescence staining with DAPI—a fluorescent dye to visualize bacteria by binding to the AT-rich regions of nucleic acids of double-stranded DNA, thereby forming fluorescent units—was used to detect bacteria in the depth of dentinal tubules [18,19]. In the present study, the degradation and removal effects of different disinfection protocols were investigated using a visualization method. The aim of our study was to establish a biofilm root canal model in order to visualize and quantify bacterial colonization within the dentinal tubules after the application of different disinfection protocols and to identify the synergistic effects of the different irrigants in combination with PUI on the dentinal surface for the first time.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Preparation

A total of 120 extracted human single-rooted premolar teeth were used in this study. The anatomic crown of each tooth was resected horizontally at 16 mm with a diamond disk (Diamond Disc 330 CA, Struers, Willich, Germany). The working length of each root canal was measured at 15 mm. The roots were prepared using the file F1 (020/06) of the rotary endodontic nickel–titanium system, ProTaper Universal (Dentsply-Maillefer, Switzerland), and were irrigated with 2 mL of NaCl (0.9%). Finally, the root canals were rinsed with 2 mL of 20% EDTA for 1 min under agitation with the ultrasonic tip IRRI S/25 mm (Satelec-VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany) for the removal of the smear layer and again with 0.9% NaCl. In order to prepare all samples for the splitting of the roots at the end of the procedure, two lines were drawn longitudinally on the buccal and lingual planes of each root. Longitudinal grooves were then carved with a diamond bur under the caution of not invading the root canal along the drawn lines (Figure 1). The complete longitudinal fracture of the roots was performed with a razorblade (Herkenrath, Solingen, Germany) and a hammer (Braun, Tuttlingen, Germany), providing two root halves from each sample.
Lastly, the teeth were cleaned in an ultrasonic bath (Sonorex Digital 10P, Bandelin, Berlin, Germany) with 20% EDTA (10 min) and finally in distilled water (1 h) (Aqua destillata, Weinert Wassertechnik GmbH, Dresden, Germany). The apical foramen of each root and the lateral grooves were sealed with silicone (Provil novo, Heraeus Kulzer GmbH, Germany) to avoid bacterial leakage through the apex and the lateral canals or through the dentinal tubules during the procedure of inoculation with E. faecalis. Afterward, the teeth were placed in an ultrasonic bath for 10 min with tryptic soy broth (TSB—Merck, Darmstadt, Germany), followed by autoclaving (10 min, 121 °C). To check the sterility of the samples, the teeth were incubated in the TSB for three days at 37 °C to prove that no contamination, as indicated by the cloudiness of the TSB, took place. Afterward, the teeth were embedded in a 5 mL Eppendorf tube (Eppendorf AG, Hamburg, Germany) with 3% Agarose (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany). Again, each root was filled with the TSB medium using a fine 27-gauge needle (3/4 0.4 mm × 19 mm) (Transcodent, Germany) to keep the dentine moistened.

2.2. Inoculation of the Roots with E. faecalis and Incubation

The E. faecalis strain was obtained (clinical bacterium isolated from a patient with persistent root canal infection and approved by the ethics committee of the University of Freiburg 140/09) and cultivated in a S2 laboratory. A day prior to the inoculation procedure of the roots, a tryptic-soy-broth (TSB) bouillon, including 2 mg/mL of Streptomycin and 0.2 μg/mL of Amphotericin B, was inoculated with a single E. faecalis colony on an agar plate and incubated at 37 °C. Streptomycin (2 mg/mL) was added as an antibacterial agent to the TSB in order to inhibit the growth of other bacteria and Amphotericin B was added as an antimycotic agent. On the first day of the inoculation procedure, each root in the Eppendorf tube was inoculated with 77E. faecalis culture bouillon (1.6 × 108/mL) after the removal of the old TSB medium and incubated at 37 °C. The next day, the bacterial suspension within the root canal was again removed with a 27-gauge needle, and new E. faecalis culture bouillon was applied to the roots and incubated at 37 °C. After two days, the bacterial suspension was removed, but this time, it was not renewed; instead, fresh TSB medium was applied to the roots. Furthermore, the infected root canals underwent a renewal of the TSB medium every day for 6 weeks. The incubation time lasted 6 weeks to allow the formation of E. faecalis biofilm.

2.3. Application of the Disinfection Protocols

After the incubation period, the bacterial suspension was removed from all the roots, and the samples were randomly divided into five experimental groups (n = 20) and one control group (n = 20). Group 1 (CTR): control group with no disinfection protocol; Group 2 (NECPUI): NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% + CHX 2% + NaCl 0.9% under passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) with Irri S 25 (Satelec-VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany); Group 3 (NEPUI): NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% under PUI with Irri S 25; Group 4 (CEPUI): CHX 2% + EDTA 20% under PUI with Irri S 25; Group 5 (NMPUI): NaOCl 3% + MTAD under PUI with Irri S25; and Group 6 (NaCLPUI): NaCl 0.9% under PUI with Irri S 25 (Table 1). Before the disinfection procedure of any group (including the control group), the roots of all groups were instrumented up to file F4 (040/0.6) of the ProTaper system (Dentsply-Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and were rinsed intermittently with 0.9% NaCl solution.

2.4. Preparation of the Specimens for Visualization Techniques

The splitting of the roots was performed directly after the application of each disinfection protocol, providing two halves of each sample. One-half of the root was used for the analysis by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and the other half was used for the analysis by fluorescence microscopic staining with 4′,6-Diamindin-2-phenylindole (DAPI). The halves for DAPI staining were transferred directly into a 15 mL centrifugal tube (Sarstedt, Nürnberg, Germany) with 4% formaldehyde to fixate the bacteria. The fixation lasted 48 h at 4 °C. Subsequently, the roots were placed in Osteosoft® (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany)—for the decalcification of the dentinal roots—until the specimens were sliceable with a scalpel. Then, every root canal half was cut transversally into two pieces: the medial part and the apical part (1 mm before the apex). Shortly after, the embedding of the medial and apical root pieces in paraffin was carried out. The sectioning of the root pieces into 2 μm sections with a microtome (Leica Biosystems Nussloch GmbH, Nußloch, Germany) took place. The object carrier was silanized, and the test species were placed on glass on a histological slide. These final steps were performed for visualization with the DAPI method.

2.5. DAPI

DAPI staining (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) was conducted as described in previous research [20,21]. DAPI (4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole) stains DNA unspecifically by binding to the AT-rich regions of double-stranded DNA. The following steps were used for the DAPI staining. The test species were covered with the DAPI stock solution (1.5 μL of stock solution in 500 μL of PBS (phosphate-buffered saline—Invitrogen Ltd., Bend, OR, USA)) in a dark chamber. This DAPI solution was removed after 15 min by rinsing several times with the PBS (phosphate-buffered saline, Invitrogen Ltd., Bend, OR, USA) before the samples underwent fluorescence microscopic analysis [19]. Thereafter, the samples were dried at room temperature and coated with the Vectrashield mounting medium (Sigma-Aldrich, Taufkirchen, Germany). The analysis by epifluorescence microscopy (Axioplan, Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) was conducted. The root canal samples with the dentinal tubules were analyzed at 1000-fold, 400-fold, and 100-fold magnifications using a light filter for DAPI (BP 365, FT 395, LP 397 Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany). The area of the ocular grid allowed the visualization of the total length of the dentinal tubules.

2.6. Scanning Electron Microscopy

Regarding the scanning electron microscopic (SEM) investigation, the other half of the root was used. The sectioned root canal specimens with four roots from each group were transferred into microtubes with 4% glutaraldehyde (Sigma-Aldrich, Taufkirchen, Germany). The fixation with glutaraldehyde was continued for 2.5 h at room temperature. The next step was washing with the PBS for 15 min twice and dehydration with Isopropanol (Carl Roth GmbH Co. KG, Karlsruhe, Germany). Then, chemical drying through iterative transfer into hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS) was performed. The specimens were fixed on SEM stubs and sputtered with gold–palladium. The scanning electron microscopy took place using a Philips ESEM XL 30 in the high-vacuum mode to detect secondary electrons for imaging.

2.7. DATA Evaluation

First, the surface area of each sample was calculated, using the Image J2-Fiji program (Curtis Rueden of UW-Madison LOCI, Madison, WI, USA), in the DAPI images with a 100-fold magnification [22]. Then, the number of bacteria per surface area was calculated visually by two operators using a compact manual cell counter (FisherbrandTM, Schwerte, Germany) in all the DAPI images of each group (apical and medial parts of the root canal). The arithmetic estimation of bacterial penetration depth was performed using the Axio Vision program (Zeiss, Jena, Germany). By that means, the distance between the entrance of the dentinal tubules and the penetrated bacterial cells was measured. Moreover, all cells were counted between the entrance of the dentinal tubules and the deepest penetrated cell in the specimens (Scheme 1).
A four-point scoring system was adapted to evaluate the surface profile of the root canal dentine after the application of the disinfection protocols by using the SEM data [23]. The scoring system was defined according to the representative images from the SEM data (Figure 2):
  • Score 0: Absence of irregularities and dentinal tubules closed.
  • Score 1: Partially irregular and dentinal tubules partially opened.
  • Score 2: Damage of the surface and dentinal tubules opened.
  • Score 3: Severe erosion of the dentinal surface and dentinal tubules widely opened.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

The values were compared by using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by a post hoc test (Dunnett’sT3). The Dunnett’s T3 test was used to assess the differences between the six groups based on the DAPI data. The level of significance was set at 0.001 for the one-way ANOVA test, with a statistical power of 95%, and at 0.05 for the Dunnett’s T3 test, with a statistical power of 80%.

3. Results

The bacterial colonization in the samples was successful. After six weeks of incubation with E. faecalis, the cells had already migrated into the dentinal tubules. The examination with the DAPI method gave insight into the remaining bacterial cells inside the dentinal tubules after the application of the different disinfection protocols. All cells were counted between the entrance of the dentinal tubules and the deepest penetrated cell in the specimens. The overall penetration depths of the deepest remaining E. faecalis cells in all groups and both parts of the root canal (medial and apical) were measured to validate the biofilm model. A deeper penetration pattern of E. faecalis into the dentinal tubules was observed in the medial part of the root canal compared to the apical part of the root canal in the control group (Figure 3).
Bacterial cells were traceable in all specimens by the DAPI method in the control group. The root canals inoculated with E. faecalis were heavily infected, and microorganisms were observed in all areas of the dentinal tubules in the control group, even after the instrumentation up to ProTaper file F4 (040/0.06). In general, not only a deeper penetration of E. faecalis was observed in the medial part compared to the apical part of the root canal in each group, but the bacterial count was higher as well. More specifically, in the control group, the bacterial count in the medial part was 1492.0 ± 768.4 bact./μm2, and in the apical part of the root canal, the count was 172.3 ± 222.1 bact./μm2. The representative images from each group visualize the penetration depth of the deepest remaining bacterial cells, as well as the residual infection of the dentinal tubules with the remaining bacteria in general, after the application of the different disinfection protocols. These images from the DAPI data are representative examples of each group from both parts of the root canal (medial and apical) (Figure 4a,b).
Specifically, less bacteria were detected in Group 2 (NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% + NaCl 0.9% + CHX 2% with PUI) when compared to Group 4 (CHX 2% + EDTA 20% with PUI) and Group 6 (NaCl 0.9% with PUI). These Groups—4 and 6—yielded comparable amounts of bacteria. Hardly any bacteria were detected in Group 3 (NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% with PUI) and in Group 5 (NaOCl 3% + MTAD with PUI) after the application of the disinfection protocols. The post hoc comparisons using the Dunnett’s T3 test indicated that the mean score for the control group was significantly different from all the other tested groups regarding the medial part of the root canal. However, at the apical part of the root canal, the control group did not significantly differ from Groups 2 (NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% + NaCl 0.9% + CHX 2% with PUI), 4 (CHX 2% + EDTA 20% with PUI), and 6 (NaCl 0.9% with PUI). There was also no significant difference between Groups 3, 5, and 2 at the medial/apical part of the root canal, but the difference was statistically significant between Groups (3 and 5) and (1, 4, and 6) at the medial part. No statistically significant association could be found between Group 3 and Group 5 (Figure 5).
The SEM data confirmed the results of the DAPI analysis. The visualization of bacteria under the scanning electron microscope (SEM) indicated colonies of E. faecalis, especially at the entrances of the dentinal tubules and the root canal surface. It was mainly observed by the SEM how each disinfection protocol had affected the structure of the root dentine.
A considerable alteration of the dentinal structure in the root canal was observed in Groups 3 and 5. This alteration resulted in the erosion of the dentinal ultrastructure. Partial irregularities were observed in Groups 2 and 4. A morphological change of the dentine surface was observed by the SEM in Group 6, as well. The dentinal tubules were partially opened, and there were areas of the dentine surface that were apparently mechanically prepared and instrumented due to the use of the ultrasonic tip (Figure 6).

4. Discussion

With the intention of studying the effect of different disinfection protocols, it was necessary to analyze the cleansing effect of different irrigations and to quantify the remaining bacteria after the decontamination. Therefore, a mono-species biofilm model was established in order to quantify penetrated bacteria into the dentinal tubules of human root dentine after the application of different disinfection protocols. The composition and structure of the endodontic biofilms are highly variable. Although this study was not in vivo and did not mimic complex multispecies endodontic biofilms, the established mono-species E. faecalis isolated from a biofilm model with persistent root canal infection provided a well-standardized anatomical and biologically relevant model that allowed the comparison of different disinfection protocols against E. faecalis biofilms, as visualized with the DAPI method.
The analytical procedure based on the visualization by DAPI staining was established by the present research group [24,25] to quantify the remaining penetrated E. faecalis cells within the dentinal tubules and to evaluate the disinfection effect of five different irrigation protocols. To a certain extent, this technique permits the two-dimensional imaging of bacteria on the root canal surface and inside the dentinal tubules. The examination following DAPI staining gave an additional insight into the remaining penetrated bacterial cells into the dentinal tubules [24,25] and confirmed the penetration of bacteria into the dentinal tubules. Furthermore, the examination with the DAPI method revealed a semi-quantitative assessment of bacteria in the observed areas. Undeniably, the evaluation of the results, specifically the calculation of bacteria, was time consuming. The compact manual cell counter allowed us to register each individual colony prior to testing based on standardized comparisons [26]. Notwithstanding the fact that the method was time-consuming, it provided an accurate estimation of the number of bacterial cells.
A criticism often brought up in relation to all imaging techniques used to evaluate intraradicular biofilms is that the observed areas are to some extent subjectively chosen by the examiner. Using the DAPI method, which also provides a local estimation of remaining bacteria, the cross sections of the root—and not of the whole root canal—were evaluated. Certainly, the field of observation is more extended in contrast to other methods, such as colony-forming units (CFU). Considering that the field of vision under the microscope is limited, most of bacteria remain undetected. Regarding CFU, most of the studies are based on the paper point sampling process for the analysis of bacteria, which is considered controversial since it leads to a biased collection of biofilm material that are readily accessible, while hidden bacteria in dentinal tubules are oftentimes disregarded [27]. A negative culture result by CFU does not necessarily imply a bacteria-free root canal system, as bacteria may be retained in complex areas of the system or into the dentinal tubules embedded within a biofilm, thus being inaccessible to the paper points used for sampling. Therefore, the CFU method in combination with paper points for bacterial identification can result in an underestimation of the bacteria present in an infected root canal [28]. Even though the field of vision in the presented DAPI method in this study is limited, it offers insight into the bacterial contamination within the dentinal tubules and the bacterial penetration depth. Further analysis of the root canal wall using SEM gives additional insight into the bacterial contamination of the root canal surface as well as the alteration of the root dentine caused by endodontic irrigants.
It is apparent that the combination of different microscopic techniques is more likely to facilitate a deeper and more realistic analysis of biofilm architecture in the root canal. The combination with SEM provides more information regarding the visualization of bacteria [29]. SEM also provides information concerning the condition of bacteria and the ultrastructure [30,31]. SEM has been used to visualize the distribution of bacteria on the surface of biofilm in the root canal wall, as well as the penetration inside dentinal tubules [24,32,33]. However, the resulting images are, therefore, only pseudo three-dimensional. As biofilms are multileveled, SEM is unable to assess the full depth of these structures [29,34,35]. Another aspect regarding SEM is that only topographical assessment of the observed structures is possible, which makes it nearly impossible to quantify the bacteria into the root dentine areas and, especially, inside the dentinal tubules. Therefore, only qualitative assessment of observed specimens can be performed with this technique. This is not surprising, considering the field of vision under a scanning electron microscope contains only a few micrograms of dentine. For this reason, previous studies have used SEM in order to visualize bacteria in the root canal and not to quantify them [12,29,36]. However, SEM is a very effective method to analyze ultrastructural surface alterations after an irrigant application. Different studies have already shown the use of SEM to investigate enamel [37,38] and dentine [39,40]. Nevertheless, a direct comparison of irrigant decontamination efficacy using fluorescence microscopy (DAPI) and dentinal surface alteration using SEM was performed for the first time in the present study.
Regarding the viability of the remaining bacteria, the established DAPI method is unable to provide knowledge about the viability of such bacteria. There is no evidence regarding a live/dead staining with the advantages of the DAPI method, which has the ability to detect the viability of penetrated bacteria located within the dentinal tubules of the root canal. The fixation of bacteria—a necessary step in the analysis with the DAPI method—destroys the viability state of cells. In general, it can be assumed that the differentiation of viable and dead bacteria is possible using different live/dead staining methods. These methods represent the viability state during the staining procedure. However, with additional after dye accumulation inside the cells, bacteria, indeed, lose their viability [41].
The model in this study was based on a mono-species biofilm with E. faecalis within the root canals and dentinal tubules. E. faecalis plays an important role in bacterial biofilm invasion and is considered a suitable model for assessing root canal bacterial penetration. Many in vitro investigations have been undertaken to examine the mechanisms involved in bacterial penetration into dentine and to visualize this infection in dentinal tubules [12,42]. Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and the DAPI method—which was used in this study—allow the most precise assessment of bacterial penetration in the dentinal tubules and generate less risk of creating artifacts, when compared to SEM [43]. Most of studies with CLSM use colony-forming units (CFU) in order to quantify bacteria that have invaded into dentinal tubules. Considering the drawbacks of CFU, the DAPI method can be considered as an alternative visualization method for quantifying bacterial penetration.
In this study, the effectiveness of the five different disinfection protocols was examined in comparison to the control group, and it was concluded that the disinfection protocols in Groups 3 (NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% with PUI) and 5 (NaOCl 3% + MTAD with PUI) were the most effective (p < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the bacterial count between both Groups 3 and 5 and all the other groups in the medial part of the root canal (p < 0.05). Although PUI improved the effectiveness of conventional irrigation, no significant difference was detected between the control group (only instrumentation and conventional irrigation with NaCl 0.9%) and Group 6 (instrumentation and passive ultrasonic irrigation with NaCl 0.9%) based on the Dunnett’s T3 test (p < 0.05). Obviously, the irrigants play an important role in the decontamination of E. faecalis biofilm, but the use of passive ultrasonic irrigation also enhances bacterial reduction from the root canal systems when compared to other methods of irrigant activation and conventional syringe irrigation [6,44,45,46].
Both groups (Groups 3 and 5) revealed the best results concerning decontamination and biofilm dissolution capacity. NaOCl is appropriate as an irrigant because it is effective in disrupting biofilm [47]. However, structural deformations/alterations were observed in the dentine ultrastructure. The use of NaOCl in combination with additional irrigants as the final irrigation provokes severe structural changes in the dentinal collagen. These phenomena has also been observed in previous ultramorphological studies [48,49]. The erosion of the dentine by proteolytic degradation is followed by the formation of fragile, spongy-like root dentine. The worst-case scenario is root fracture due to the weakening of the root. Therefore, it is a fine line between removing too much dental tissue, which would strongly weaken the root, and leaving the infected dental tissue in the root canal, which would reduce the possibility of achieving the best decontamination effects.
Intensive research is being conducted to develop disinfection protocols for the root canal system. The ideal protocol of disinfection does not exist yet. In the near future, nanotechnology might be applied to the endodontic field. In endodontics, there are no techniques that promote total anti-biofilm removal while simultaneously do not affect the root dentine ultrastructure. Nanomaterials and nanocarriers could open new opportunities for the removal of biofilms and repair of tooth structure [50].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, a clinically relevant E. faecalis biofilm model for in vitro studies—based on visualization by DAPI staining—was established. The results of the present study suggest that the combination of 3% NaOCl under passive ultrasonic irrigation with an additional final irrigant, such as 20% EDTA or MTAD, is the most effective disinfection protocol against E. faecalis biofilm. Yet, the dentinal root canal surface is altered the most after the application of 3% NaOCl with 20% EDTA or MTAD. The combination of epifluorescence microscopy with DAPI staining and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) is a novel approach of the present research group to visualize and quantify the decontamination effects of different endodontic irrigants by evaluating the remaining bacteria on the root canal surface and within the dentinal tubules. At the same time, the penetration depth of bacteria and the bacterial ultrastructure/condition, as well as the alteration of the dentine due to the endodontic irrigants, can be evaluated.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.H., M.-T.K. and M.D. (Martin Dannemann); data curation, M.D. (Maria Dede); formal analysis, J.N.; investigation, M.D. (Maria Dede); methodology, M.D. (Maria Dede), S.B., C.H. and M.-T.K.; project administration, M.D. (Martin Dannemann) and M.-T.K.; supervision, C.H. and M.-T.K.; validation, M.D. (Maria Dede) and S.B.; visualization, M.D. (Maria Dede); writing—original draft, M.D. (Maria Dede); writing—review and editing, M.D. (Maria Dede), C.H. and M.-T.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the DFG (German Research Foundation), grant number (WE 5838/1-1 and WE 5838/1-2, DA 1701/1-1 and DA 1701/1-2).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Approval by the ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (140/09) for the isolation of E. faecalis.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

The Article Processing Charges (APC) were funded by the joint publication funds of the TU Dresden, including Carl Gustav Carus Faculty of Medicine, and the SLUB Dresden as well as the Open Access Publication Funding of the DFG.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Except as disclosed above, the authors certify that they have no commercial associations that might represent a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted manuscript. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Ramachandran Nair, P.N. Light and Electron Microscopic Studies of Root Canal Flora and Periapical Lesions. J. Endod. 1987, 13, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Ordinola-Zapata, R.; Noblett, W.C.; Perez-Ron, A.; Ye, Z.; Vera, J. Present Status and Future Directions of Intracanal Medicaments. Int. Endod. J. 2022, 55, 613–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Plotino, G.; Cortese, T.; Grande, N.M.; Leonardi, D.P.; Di Giorgio, G.; Testarelli, L.; Gambarini, G. New Technologies to Improve Root Canal Disinfection. Braz. Dent. J. 2016, 27, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Cunningham, W.; Martin, H. A Scanning Electron Microscope Evaluation of Root Canal Débridement with the Endosonic Ultrasonic Synergistic System. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1982, 53, 527–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lee, S.; Wu, M.; Wesselink, P. The Efficacy of Ultrasonic Irrigation to Remove Artificially Placed Dentine Debris from Differ-ent-sized Simulated Plastic Root Canals. Int. Endod. J. 2004, 37, 607–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Van der Sluis, L.W.M.; Versluis, M.; Wu, M.K.; Wesselink, P.R. Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation of the Root Canal: A Review of the Literature. Int. Endod. J. 2007, 40, 415–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Love, R.M. Enterococcus faecalis—A Mechanism for Its Role in Endodontic Failure. Int. Endod. J. 2001, 34, 399–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Barbosa-Ribeiro, M.; De-Jesus-Soares, A.; Zaia, A.A.; Ferraz, C.C.; Almeida, J.F.; Gomes, B.P. Antimicrobial Susceptibility and Characterization of Virulence Genes of Enterococcus faecalis Isolates from Teeth with Failure of the Endodontic Treatment. J. Endod. 2016, 42, 1022–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Siqueira, J.; Rôças, I.; Rosado, A. Investigation of Bacterial Communities Associated with Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Endodontic Infections by Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis Fingerprinting Approach. Oral Microbiol. Immunol. 2004, 19, 363–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Andrewes, F.; Horder, T. A Study of the streptococci pathogenic for man. Lancet 1906, 168, 852–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Vidana, R.; Billström, H.; Sullivan, Å.; Ahlquist, M.; Lund, B. Enterococcus faecalis Infection in Root Canals—Host-derived or Exogenous Source? Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2011, 52, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ørstavik, D.; Haapasalo, M. Disinfection by Endodontic Irrigants and Dressings of Experimentally Infected Dentinal Tubules. Endod. Dent. Traumatol. 1990, 6, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Siqueirajr, J.; Rôças, I.N.; Favieri, A.; Lima, K.C. Chemomechanical Reduction of the Bacterial Population in the Root Canal after Instrumentation and Irrigation with 1%, 2.5%, and 5.25% Sodium Hypochlorite. J. Endod. 2000, 26, 331–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Pladisai, P.; Ampornaramveth, R.S.; Chivatxaranukul, P. Effectiveness of Different Disinfection Protocols on the Reduction of Bacteria in Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm in Teeth with Large Root Canals. J. Endod. 2016, 42, 460–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gründling, G.L.; Zechin, J.G.; Jardim, W.M.; Oliveira, S.D.; De Figueiredo, J.P. Effect of Ultrasonics on Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm in a Bovine Tooth Model. J. Endod. 2011, 37, 1128–1133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Estrela, C.; Sydney, G.; de Figueiredo, J.P. A Model System to Study Antimicrobial Strategies in Endodontic Biofilms. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2009, 17, 87–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Teves, A.; Blanco, D.; Casaretto, M.; Torres, J.; Alvarado, D.E.; Coaguila-Llerena, H.; Faria, G.; Jaramillo, D.E. Multispecies Biofilm Removal by XP-endo Finisher and Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation: A scanning Electron Microscopy Study. Aust. Endod. J. 2022, 48, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Morikawa, K.; Yanagida, M. Visualization of Individual DNA Molecules in Solution by Light Microscopy: DAPI Staining Method. J. Biochem. 1981, 89, 693–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kensche, A.; Basche, S.; Bowen, W.H.; Hannig, M.; Hannig, C. Fluorescence Microscopic Visualization of Non Cellular Com-ponents during Initial Bioadhesion in situ. Arch. Oral Biol. 2013, 58, 1271–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hannig, C.; Hannig, M.; Rehmer, O.; Braun, G.; Hellwig, E.; Al-Ahmad, A. Fluorescence Microscopic Visualization and Quan-tification of Initial Bacterial Colonization on Enamel in situ. Arch. Oral Biol. 2007, 52, 1048–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jung, D.J.; Al-Ahmad, A.; Follo, M.; Spitzmüller, B.; Hoth-Hannig, W.; Hannig, M.; Hannig, C. Visualization of Initial Bacterial Colonization on Dentine and Enamel in situ. J. Microbiol. Methods 2010, 81, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Schindelin, J.; Arganda-Carreras, I.; Frise, E.; Kaynig, V.; Longair, M.; Pietzsch, T.; Preibisch, S.; Rueden, C.; Saalfeld, S.; Schmid, B.; et al. Fiji: An Open-source Platform for Biological-image Analysis. Nat. Methods 2012, 9, 676–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Prati, C.; Foschi, F.; Nucci, C.; Montebugnoli, L.; Marchionni, S. Appearance of the Root Canal Walls after Preparation with NiTi Rotary Instruments: A comparative SEM Investigation. Clin. Oral Investig. 2004, 8, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Kirsch, J.; Basche, S.; Neunzehn, J.; Dede, M.; Dannemann, M.; Hannig, C.; Weber, M.-T. Is it Really Penetration? Locomotion of Devitalized Enterococcus faecalis Cells within Dentinal Tubules of Bovine Teeth. Arch. Oral Biol. 2017, 83, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Kirsch, J.; Basche, S.; Neunzehn, J.; Dede, M.; Dannemann, M.; Hannig, C.; Weber, M.-T. Is it Really Penetration? Part 2. Locomotion of Enterococcus faecalis Cells within Dentinal Tubules of Bovine Teeth. Clin. Oral Investig. 2019, 23, 4325–4334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kubista, M.; Aakerman, B.; Norden, B. Characterization of Interaction between DNA and 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole by Optical Spectroscopy. Biochemistry 1987, 26, 4545–4553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Sterzenbach, T.; Pioch, A.; Dannemann, M.; Hannig, C.; Weber, M.-T. Quantification of Bacterial Colonization in Dental Hard Tissues Using Optimized Molecular Biological Methods. Front. Genet. 2020, 11, 599137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Siqueira, J.F.; Rôças, I.N. PCR Methodology As a Valuable Tool for Identification of Endodontic Pathogens. J. Dent. 2003, 31, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schaudinn, C.; Carr, G.; Gorur, A.; Jaramillo, D.; Costerton, J.W.; Webster, P. Imaging of Endodontic Biofilms by Combined Microscopy (FISH/cLSM—SEM). J. Microsc. 2009, 235, 124–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Huque, J.; Kota, K.; Yamaga, M.; Iwaku, M.; Hoshino, E. Bacterial Eradication from Root Dentine by Ultrasonic Irrigation with Sodium Hypochlorite. Int. Endod. J. 1998, 31, 242–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fritz, B.; Stavnsbjerg, C.; Markvart, M.; Damgaard, P.D.B.; Nielsen, S.H.; Bjørndal, L.; Qvortrup, K.; Bjarnsholt, T. Shotgun Sequencing of Clinical Biofilm following Scanning Electron Microscopy Identifies Bacterial Community Composition. Pathog. Dis. 2019, 77, ftz013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Al-Nazhan, S.; Al-Sulaiman, A.; Al-Rasheed, F.; Alnajjar, F.; Al-Abdulwahab, B.; Al-Badah, A. Microorganism Penetration in Dentinal Tubules of Instrumented and Retreated Root Canal Walls. In vitro SEM Study. Restor. Dent. Endod. 2014, 39, 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Yoo, Y.-J.; Kim, A.R.; Perinpanayagam, H.; Han, S.H.; Kum, K.-Y. Candida albicans Virulence Factors and Pathogenicity for Endodontic Infections. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kishen, A.; George, S.; Kumar, R. Enterococcus faecalis-Mediated Biomineralized Biofilm Formation on Root Canal Dentine in vitro. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2006, 77, 406–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Seet, A.N.; Zilm, P.S.; Gully, N.J.; Cathro, P.R. Qualitative Comparison of Sonic or Laser Energisation of 4% Sodium Hypochlorite on an Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm Grown in vitro. Aust. Endod. J. 2012, 38, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wanicharat, W.; Wanachantararak, P.; Poomanee, W.; Leelapornpisid, P.; Leelapornpisid, W. Potential of Bouea Macrophylla kernel Extract as an Intracanal Medicament against Mixed-species Bacterial-fungal Biofilm. An In Vitro and Ex Vivo Study. Arch. Oral Biol. 2022, 143, 105539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Coceska, E.; Gjorgievska, E.; Coleman, N.J.; Gabric, D.; Slipper, I.J.; Stevanovic, M.; Nicholson, J.W. Enamel Alteration following Tooth Bleaching and Remineralization. J. Microsc. 2016, 262, 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Suriyasangpetch, S.; Sivavong, P.; Niyatiwatchanchai, B.; Osathanon, T.; Gorwong, P.; Pianmee, C.; Nantanapiboon, D. Effect of Whitening Toothpaste on Surface Roughness and Colour Alteration of Artificially Extrinsic Stained Human Enamel: In Vitro Study. Dent. J. 2022, 10, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Montes, M.A.J.R.; De Goes, M.F.; Sinhoreti, M. The In Vitro Morphological Effects of Some Current Pre-treatments on Dentin Surface: A SEM Evaluation. Oper. Dent. 2005, 30, 201–212. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Santosh, A.; Kakade, A.; Mali, S.; Lalwani, R.; Badnaware, S.; Deshmukh, B.; Shetty, H. Scanning Electron Microscopic Observation of Primary Tooth Dentin Following Final Irrigation with 95% Ethanol: An In Vitro Study. J. Indian Soc. Pedod. Prev. Dent. 2019, 37, 271–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tawakoli, P.N.; Al-Ahmad, A.; Hoth-Hannig, W.; Hannig, M.; Hannig, C. Comparison of Different Live/Dead Stainings for Detection and Quantification of Adherent Microorganisms in the Initial Oral Biofilm. Clin. Oral Investig. 2013, 17, 841–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Love, R.M.; McMillan, M.D.; Park, Y.; Jenkinson, H.F. Coinvasion of Dentinal Tubules by Porphyromonas gingivalis and Streptococcus gordonii Depends upon Binding Specificity of Streptococcal Antigen I/II Adhesin. Infect. Immun. 2000, 68, 1359–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Tsesis, I.; Elbahary, S.; Venezia, N.B.; Rosen, E. Bacterial Colonization in the Apical Part of Extracted Human Teeth following Root-end Resection and Filling: A Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy Study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mozo, S.; Llena, C.; Forner, L. Review of Ultrasonic Irrigation in Endodontics: Increasing Action of Irrigating Solutions. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal. 2012, 17, e512–e516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Nagendrababu, V.; Jayaraman, J.; Suresh, A.; Kalyanasundaram, S.; Neelakantan, P. Effectiveness of Ultrasonically Activated Irrigation on Root Canal Disinfection: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies. Clin. Oral Investig. 2018, 22, 655–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Nair, R.M.; Jayasree, S.; Poornima, E.S.; Ashique, M. Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacy on Enterococcus faecalis and Smear Layer Removal in Curved Canals by Different Irrigation Techniques: An In Vitro Study. J. Conserv. Dent. 2022, 25, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rodrigues, C.T.; de Andrade, F.B.; De Vasconcelos, L.R.S.M.; Midena, R.Z.; Pereira, T.C.; Kuga, M.C.; Duarte, M.A.H.; Bernardineli, N. Antibacterial Properties of Silver Nanoparticles As a Root Canal Irrigant against Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm and Infected Dentinal Tubules. Int. Endod. J. 2018, 51, 901–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Moreira, D.M.; Almeida, J.F.; Ferraz, C.C.; Gomes, B.P.; Line, S.R.; Zaia, A.A. Structural Analysis of Bovine Root Dentin after Use of Different Endodontics Auxiliary Chemical Substances. J. Endod. 2009, 35, 1023–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wagner, M.H.; da Rosa, R.A.; de Figueiredo, J.A.P.; Duarte, M.A.H.; Pereira, J.R.; Só, M.V.R. Final Irrigation Protocols May Affect Intraradicular Dentin Ultrastructure. Clin. Oral Investig. 2016, 21, 2173–2182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Diogo, P.; Amparo, F.; Faustino, M.; Palma, P.J.; Rai, A.; Graça, P.M.S.; Neves, M.; Miguel Santos, J. May Carriers at Nanoscale Improve the Endodontic’s Future? Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2023, 195, 114731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jfb 14 00176 g001 550
Figure 1. (A) Initial decoronized root; (B) carving a groove with a diamond bur without invading the root canal; and (C) carved groove on the lingual and buccal planes of the root.
Figure 1. (A) Initial decoronized root; (B) carving a groove with a diamond bur without invading the root canal; and (C) carved groove on the lingual and buccal planes of the root.
Jfb 14 00176 g001
Jfb 14 00176 sch001 550
Scheme 1. Flow chart of the experimental setup.
Scheme 1. Flow chart of the experimental setup.
Jfb 14 00176 sch001
Jfb 14 00176 g002 550
Figure 2. Representative scanning electron micrographs of the surface profiles of root canal walls characterized by a score of 0–3. (5000-fold magnification). Score 0: absence of irregularities of the root canal wall and dentinal tubules closed—sample from the control group; Score 1: partially irregular root canal wall and dentinal tubules partially opened—sample from Group 2; Score 2: damage of the surface and dentinal tubules opened—sample from Group 3; and Score 3: severe erosion of the dentinal surface, dentinal tubules widely opened, and collagen exposed—sample from Group 5.
Figure 2. Representative scanning electron micrographs of the surface profiles of root canal walls characterized by a score of 0–3. (5000-fold magnification). Score 0: absence of irregularities of the root canal wall and dentinal tubules closed—sample from the control group; Score 1: partially irregular root canal wall and dentinal tubules partially opened—sample from Group 2; Score 2: damage of the surface and dentinal tubules opened—sample from Group 3; and Score 3: severe erosion of the dentinal surface, dentinal tubules widely opened, and collagen exposed—sample from Group 5.
Jfb 14 00176 g002
Jfb 14 00176 g003 550
Figure 3. DAPI results: bacterial penetration depth (μm) of the deepest remaining E. faecalis cells in the control group from both parts of the root canal (medial and apical) presented in the boxplots. The dots represent all the values, including outliers. Mean scores—mean of value (mv)—are outlined by a dashed line, and median scores are outlined by a straight line: medial part: 289.4 ± 121.554 μm (mv), and apical part: 93.45 ± 118.554 μm (mv).
Figure 3. DAPI results: bacterial penetration depth (μm) of the deepest remaining E. faecalis cells in the control group from both parts of the root canal (medial and apical) presented in the boxplots. The dots represent all the values, including outliers. Mean scores—mean of value (mv)—are outlined by a dashed line, and median scores are outlined by a straight line: medial part: 289.4 ± 121.554 μm (mv), and apical part: 93.45 ± 118.554 μm (mv).
Jfb 14 00176 g003
Jfb 14 00176 g004a 550Jfb 14 00176 g004b 550
Figure 4. (a) DAPI staining; typical examples for the penetration depth and remaining bacterial colonization/cells for each group in the medial (A, C, and E) and apical (B, D, and F) parts of the root canal. Measured penetration depth of E. faecalis in a representative sample of the control group: in the medial part, it is 271 μm (A), and in the apical part, it is 259 μm (B). Measured penetration depth in the medial part of Group 2 is 309 μm into the dentinal tubules (C) and 95 μm in the apical part of the root canal (D). In Group 3, only one specimen sample is found with a penetration depth of 233 μm in the medial part of the root canal (E), and there are no bacteria in the apical part of the root canal (F). Remaining E. faecalis cells (white) are distributed randomly in small aggregates, and the stars (red) outline the artifacts. Group 1: control group; Group 2: NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% + CHX 2% + NaCl 0.9% with PUI; and Group 3: NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% with PUI. (b) DAPI staining: typical examples for the penetration depth and remaining bacterial colonization/cells for each group in the medial (A, C, and E) and apical (B, D, and F) parts of the root canal. No bacteria are detectable in the dentinal tubules of the apical part of Groups 4, 5, and 6 (B, D, and F). Measured penetration depth of E. faecalis cells in the medial part of Group 6 is 323 μm into the dentinal tubules (E), and it is 372 μm in Group 4 (A). In a sample of Group 5 (medial part), the measured penetration depth of the deepest remaining E. faecalis cells is 333 μm (C). Remaining E. faecalis cells (white) are distributed randomly. Group 4: CHX 2% + EDTA 20% with PUI; Group 5: NaOCl 3% + MTAD with PUI; and Group 6: NaCl 0.9% with PUI.
Figure 4. (a) DAPI staining; typical examples for the penetration depth and remaining bacterial colonization/cells for each group in the medial (A, C, and E) and apical (B, D, and F) parts of the root canal. Measured penetration depth of E. faecalis in a representative sample of the control group: in the medial part, it is 271 μm (A), and in the apical part, it is 259 μm (B). Measured penetration depth in the medial part of Group 2 is 309 μm into the dentinal tubules (C) and 95 μm in the apical part of the root canal (D). In Group 3, only one specimen sample is found with a penetration depth of 233 μm in the medial part of the root canal (E), and there are no bacteria in the apical part of the root canal (F). Remaining E. faecalis cells (white) are distributed randomly in small aggregates, and the stars (red) outline the artifacts. Group 1: control group; Group 2: NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% + CHX 2% + NaCl 0.9% with PUI; and Group 3: NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% with PUI. (b) DAPI staining: typical examples for the penetration depth and remaining bacterial colonization/cells for each group in the medial (A, C, and E) and apical (B, D, and F) parts of the root canal. No bacteria are detectable in the dentinal tubules of the apical part of Groups 4, 5, and 6 (B, D, and F). Measured penetration depth of E. faecalis cells in the medial part of Group 6 is 323 μm into the dentinal tubules (E), and it is 372 μm in Group 4 (A). In a sample of Group 5 (medial part), the measured penetration depth of the deepest remaining E. faecalis cells is 333 μm (C). Remaining E. faecalis cells (white) are distributed randomly. Group 4: CHX 2% + EDTA 20% with PUI; Group 5: NaOCl 3% + MTAD with PUI; and Group 6: NaCl 0.9% with PUI.
Jfb 14 00176 g004aJfb 14 00176 g004b
Jfb 14 00176 g005 550
Figure 5. DAPI staining: aggregated presentation of data representing the number of bacteria both at the medial (m) and apical (a) parts of the root canal in all groups. Control Group 1: 1492.0 ± 768.4 bact./μm2 (m) and 172.3 ± 222.1 bact./μm2 (a); Group 2 (NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% + NaCl 0.9% + CHX 2% with PUI): 157.8 ± 239.3 bact./μm2 (m) and 19.6 ± 31.1 bact./μm2 (a); Group 3 (NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% with PUI): 66.2 ± 188.2 bact./μm2 (m) and 0.5 ± 1.4 bact./μm2 (a); Group 4 (CHX 2% + EDTA 20% with PUI): 483.8 ± 409.9 bact./μm2 (m) and 7.9 ± 16.9 bact./μm2 (a); Group 5 (NaOCl 3% + MTAD with PUI): 33.2 ± 44.3 bact./μm2 (m) and 0.5 ± 1.6 bact./μm2 (a); and Group 6 (NaCl 0.9% with PUI): 329.5 ± 275.8 bact./μm2 (m) and 49.8 ± 109.3 bact./μm2 (a). Outliers are represented by + (red) in the boxplot. Statistical significances are outlined by * between the various conditions. One-way ANOVA (p < 0.001); Dunnett’s T3 test (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. DAPI staining: aggregated presentation of data representing the number of bacteria both at the medial (m) and apical (a) parts of the root canal in all groups. Control Group 1: 1492.0 ± 768.4 bact./μm2 (m) and 172.3 ± 222.1 bact./μm2 (a); Group 2 (NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% + NaCl 0.9% + CHX 2% with PUI): 157.8 ± 239.3 bact./μm2 (m) and 19.6 ± 31.1 bact./μm2 (a); Group 3 (NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% with PUI): 66.2 ± 188.2 bact./μm2 (m) and 0.5 ± 1.4 bact./μm2 (a); Group 4 (CHX 2% + EDTA 20% with PUI): 483.8 ± 409.9 bact./μm2 (m) and 7.9 ± 16.9 bact./μm2 (a); Group 5 (NaOCl 3% + MTAD with PUI): 33.2 ± 44.3 bact./μm2 (m) and 0.5 ± 1.6 bact./μm2 (a); and Group 6 (NaCl 0.9% with PUI): 329.5 ± 275.8 bact./μm2 (m) and 49.8 ± 109.3 bact./μm2 (a). Outliers are represented by + (red) in the boxplot. Statistical significances are outlined by * between the various conditions. One-way ANOVA (p < 0.001); Dunnett’s T3 test (p < 0.05).
Jfb 14 00176 g005
Jfb 14 00176 g006 550
Figure 6. Representative images obtained by SEM from the six groups (1000×, 20,000× magnification) characterized by the scoring system: (a) control group: (score 0) no irregularities on the dentine surface; (b) Group 2: (Score 1) dentine surface morphology coated with collagen; (c) Group 3: (Score 0) demineralization of dentine surface; (d) Group 4: (Score 1) limited non-instrumented areas with partially closed dentinal tubules; (e) Group 5: (Score 0) severe erosion of the dentinal surface; and (f) Group 6: (Score 2) partially irregular dentinal surface.
Figure 6. Representative images obtained by SEM from the six groups (1000×, 20,000× magnification) characterized by the scoring system: (a) control group: (score 0) no irregularities on the dentine surface; (b) Group 2: (Score 1) dentine surface morphology coated with collagen; (c) Group 3: (Score 0) demineralization of dentine surface; (d) Group 4: (Score 1) limited non-instrumented areas with partially closed dentinal tubules; (e) Group 5: (Score 0) severe erosion of the dentinal surface; and (f) Group 6: (Score 2) partially irregular dentinal surface.
Jfb 14 00176 g006
Table
Table 1. Disinfection/irrigation protocols in each group.
Table 1. Disinfection/irrigation protocols in each group.
Group 1 CTRGroup 2 NECPUIGroup 3 NEPUIGroup 4 CEPUIGroup 5 NMPUIGroup 6 NaClPUI
Control group no disinfection protocolNaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% + CHX 2% + NaCl 0.9% under passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) with Irri S 25NaOCl 3% + EDTA 20% under PUI with Irri S 25CHX 2% + EDTA 20% under PUI with Irri S 25NaOCl 3% + MTAD under PUI with Irri S 25NaCl 0.9% under PUI with Irri S 25
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dede, M.; Basche, S.; Neunzehn, J.; Dannemann, M.; Hannig, C.; Kühne, M.-T. Efficacy of Endodontic Disinfection Protocols in an E. faecalis Biofilm Model—Using DAPI Staining and SEM. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14040176

AMA Style

Dede M, Basche S, Neunzehn J, Dannemann M, Hannig C, Kühne M-T. Efficacy of Endodontic Disinfection Protocols in an E. faecalis Biofilm Model—Using DAPI Staining and SEM. Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2023; 14(4):176. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14040176

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dede, Maria, Sabine Basche, Jörg Neunzehn, Martin Dannemann, Christian Hannig, and Marie-Theres Kühne. 2023. "Efficacy of Endodontic Disinfection Protocols in an E. faecalis Biofilm Model—Using DAPI Staining and SEM" Journal of Functional Biomaterials 14, no. 4: 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14040176

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop