Virginia Commonwealth University VCU Scholars Compass Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2012 The Antimicrobial Effect of STERIPLEX HC in comparison with Sodium Hypochlorite on Enterococcus faecalis Jonathan Coudron Virginia Commonwealth University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd Part of the Dentistry Commons The Author Downloaded from https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/etd/2654 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at VCU Scholars Compass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of VCU Scholars Compass. For more information, please contact libcompass@vcu.edu.
Jonathan P. Coudron, DDS 2012 All Rights Reserved
The Antimicrobial Effect of STERIPLEX TM HC in comparison with Sodium Hypochlorite on Enterococcus faecalis A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Dentistry at Virginia Commonwealth University. by Jonathan Philip Coudron, BS, Brigham Young University-Idaho, 2005 DDS, Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Dentistry, 2009 Director: Karan J. Replogle, DDS, MS, Department Chair, Department of Endodontics, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Dentistry Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, Virginia February, 2012
- ii - Acknowledgment I give all praise and glory to my Father in Heaven, the supreme provider, and His Son Jesus Christ who is my eternal hope and joy. Additionally, the author wishes to thank several people who without their support I could not have completed this thesis. I would like to thank my wife, Lindsay, for her love, support, and patience. I would like to thank Drs. Kitten, Black, Replogle, and Best for their help and direction with this project. Additionally, I would like to thank Joshua Miles, Jared Coudron, Philip Coudron and Nicai Zollar for their help in the laboratory.
- iii - Table of Contents List of Tables..iv List of Figures.v Abstract..vi Introduction.1 Materials and Methods....... 15 Results 18 Discussion..25 References..32 Appendix 40 Vita. 59
- iv - List of Tables Table Page 1. 1% Results Comparison of CFU/ml across the groups......22 2. 0.1% Results Comparison of CFU/ml across the groups... 23 3. Raw Data Collection.......40
- v - List of Figures Figure Page 1. 50% Disinfectant Suspension......19 2. 25% Disinfectant Suspension...19 3. 10% Disinfectant Suspension...20 4. 1% Disinfectant Suspension.....21 5. 0.1% Disinfectant Suspension......... 22 6. Picture of E. faecalis/disinfectant Test Tubes. 56 7. Picture of Dilution Series.....57 8. Picture of CFU s on Agar Plates (Drop Plating). 58
Abstract THE ANTIMICROBIAL EFFECT OF STERIPLEX TM HC IN COMPARISON WITH SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE ON ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS By Jonathan P. Coudron, DDS A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Dentistry at Virginia Commonwealth University. Virginia Commonwealth University, 2012. Director: Karan J. Replogle, DDS, MS Department Chair, Department of Endodontics The study objective was to compare the antimicrobial activity of STERIPLEX HC with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) at different dilutions (50%, 25%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%) and different time intervals (1, 3, 5 minutes) on Enterococcus faecalis. All data was analyzed using an ANOVA. The 50%, 25%, and 10% dilutions of both disinfectants reduced the colony forming unit (CFU) count to below the limit of detection (50 CFU/ml) after one minute. The 1% dilutions at each of the time intervals show NaOCl was significantly more effective than STERIPLEX HC (all Ps <.0001) in reducing the CFU/ml count. The 0.1% dilutions of NaOCl and STERIPLEX HC at 1 minute, were not different (P = 0.7808), while at 3 minutes and 5 minutes NaOCl was significantly more effective (P = 0.0098 and P <.0001, respectively).
Introduction The etiology of endodontic infections has been well documented to be of microbiotic origin. In 1965, Kakehashi et al demonstrated that pulp exposures in conventional lab rats resulted in apical periodontitis and eventually became abscesses, while germ free rats with pulp exposures retained normal apical tissue and healed coronally with dentinal bridging (1). In 1976, Sundqvist sampled necrotic traumatized human teeth with intact crowns and discovered that bacteria were only present in teeth with radiographic evidence of apical periodontitis (2). Möller and others studied the result of microorganisms in exposed monkey teeth. When teeth were devitalized aseptically and immediately sealed, they retained healthy periodontium. Teeth that were devitalized and left open to oral microorganisms showed inflammatory reactions clinically and radiographically. All the infected teeth histologically examined showed inflammatory reactions in the periapical region (3). More recently, Lin et al obtained similar results in a dog study. Devitalized dog teeth were either sealed immediately or left exposed to the oral microorganisms for seven days and then sealed. One year later, histological examination indicated that uninfected pulp tissue did not cause persistent periapical inflammation while the infected pulp tissue showed varying degrees of periapical inflammation (4). It has been shown that failure of endodontic treatment is due to the presence of microorganisms either having remained in or re-colonized the obturated root canal (5). Altogether, there is extensive data to conclude that oral microorganisms play a major role in endodontic infections. - 1 -
One of the primary purposes of non-surgical root canal therapy, therefore, is to eliminate the microorganisms and the associated infected and necrotic pulpal remnants in order to prevent or cure apical periodontitis. Studies have demonstrated that mechanical debridement of the canal alone is insufficient to disinfect the root canal. Bystrom and Sundqvist evaluated in vivo the quantity of bacteria before and after root canal treatment with saline as the irrigant and stainless steel instruments for mechanical debridement. They found an initial bacteria load of 10 4-10 6 that was reduced by only 10 2-10 3 fewer bacteria cells after treatment. Some of the teeth even demonstrated an increase in bacterial numbers between appointments (6). More recently, Dalton et al performed a similar study using saline as the irrigant and compared bacteria reduction of stainless steel hand instrumentation to nickel titanium rotary instrumentation. They found no detectable difference in the number of colony forming units between the two groups and that neither technique could sufficiently disinfect the canal (7). These in vivo bacterial studies are in agreement with a microcomputed tomography (CT) scanning study performed in vitro that revealed regardless of the instrumentation technique, 35% or more of the canal surface area remained untouched (8). Thus, mechanical debridement alone is insufficient to render the root canal free of bacteria. Irrigants are required to adequately eliminate the microbiota and its associated biofilm from the root canal. In addition, an ideal irrigant should be able to dissolve necrotic pulp tissue within the canal and simultaneously be nonirritating to the periapical tissues. The ideal irrigant would also have a prolonged antimicrobial effect long after the canal is dried, be able to inactivate endotoxin and microbial byproducts that initiate the host inflammatory response, be able to completely remove the smear layer or prevent the - 2 -
formation thereof, be active in the presence of blood, serum, and protein derivatives of tissue, have low surface tension, not stain tooth structure, be able to disinfect the underlying dentin and its tubules, have no adverse effects on the physical properties of exposed dentin, have no adverse effects on the sealing ability of filling material, have convenient application, and be relatively inexpensive (9, 10). Many irrigating solutions have been studied but no current disinfectant possesses all the desired characteristics. Some are frequently used in alternating sequence during treatment for the combined properties. The irrigant sodium hypochlorite possesses many of the desired properties of a disinfecting solution. Its antimicrobial effect has been well studied. Bystrom and Sundqvist showed that 0.5% NaOCl was better than saline in reducing the bacterial load in a clinical study (11). Radcliffe et al examined the effectiveness of different concentrations of NaOCl at different time intervals against microbiota associated with refractory endodontic infections in planktonic solution. They found 0.5% NaOCl was able to eradicate Actinomyces israelii and Canidia albicans after 10 seconds. In contrast, 0.5% NaOCl required 30 minutes to eradicate Enterococcus faecalis but only 2 minutes when using 5.25% NaOCl (12). Barnard et al also found that a low concentration of 1% NaOCl was sufficient to eliminate Actinomyces israelii in suspension in only one minute (13). Waltimo et al also found that a low concentration of 0.5% NaOCl eradicated all the Candida albicans yeast cells within 30 seconds in a filter plate suspension test (14). In contrast to the Radcliff study, Siqueira et al found no difference in the antimicrobial effectiveness of 1%, 2.5% and 5.25% NaOCl after instrumentation in extracted teeth contaminated with E. faecalis. All concentrations significantly reduced the bacterial load - 3 -
(15). The concentration of NaOCl that should be employed to retain the best antimicrobial properties is debatable, however it has been clearly shown that NaOCl is an effective antimicrobial agent against planktonic microbiota in endondontic treatment. Bacteria growing in sessile surroundings like biofilms are more difficult to eradicate than planktonic microorganisms and represent a more realistic environment of what is found inside the root canal system of necrotic teeth (16). NaOCl has been shown to be an effective antimicrobial agent against biofilms. Dunavant et al grew E. faecalis biofilms using the flow cell system and then immersed the biofilms in various irrigants for 1 and 5 minutes. They found that only NaOCl, at either 1% or 6%, was able to effectively eliminate the E. faecalis grown in the biofilms (17). Clegg et al grew polymicrobial biofilms on apical root sections and then immersed the sections in different irrigant solutions for 15 minutes (6%, 3%, 1% NaOCl, 1% NaOCl and MTAD, 2% chlorhexidine). They concluded that only the 6% NaOCl was able to both completely eliminate the bacteria and physically remove the biofilm (18). Therefore, low concentrations of NaOCl are effective at killing microorganisms within a biofilm and higher concentrations are additionally effective in removing the biofilm from the root canal system. Sodium hypochlorite is effective at dissolving tissue. Hand et al demonstrated that 5.25% NaOCl can dissolve necrotic rat tissue most effectively when compared to lower concentrations (19). Rosenfeld et al demonstrated that 5.25% NaOCl is capable of dissolving vital pulp tissue, verified histologically after extraction for orthodontic purposes (20). - 4 -
Gram-negative bacteria found in the infected root canal contain an endotoxin, lipopolysaccaride (LPS), on their outer membrane that elicits a host inflammatory response even after the bacterial cell itself has been killed (21). Buck et al studied in vitro the effects of endodontic irrigants and calcium hydroxide, an intracanal medicament, on LPS using mass spectrometry/gas chromatography. They found water, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), ethanol, 0.12% chlorhexidine, chlorhexidine plus NaOCl, and NaOCl alone showed little breakdown of LPS after 30 minutes. Only calcium hydroxide after 1, 2, or 5 days detoxified the LPS (22). Martinho and Gomes quantified bacteria and LPS levels in vivo before and after chemomechanical instrumentation with 2.5% NaOCl in teeth with pulp necrosis and apical periodontitis. They found a moderate bacterial load reduction of 99.78% but a less effective endotoxin reduction of 59.99%. They also found a significant correlation between more symptoms with a higher endotoxin level (23). NaOCl therefore is not effective in eliminating LPS. A disadvantage of NaOCl is the risk of possible cytotoxicity and corresponding inflammation if expressed in sufficient amounts past the minor apical foramen. Simbula et al found that even at a low concentration of 0.025%, NaOCl killed 60% of cultured fibroblasts after 2 hours of exposure (24). However, in vitro and animal studies do not always correspond to in vivo human studies. On the premise that cytotoxicity would elicit pain, Harrison et al studied the difference in inter-appointment discomfort when using 5.25% NaOCl or saline for irrigation on vital and nonvital teeth with and without apical radiolucencies. They found no significant relationship between the types of irrigant used and the incidence or degree of inter-appointment pain among the groups - 5 -
(25). In summation, albeit rare, there are reports in the literature concerning hypochlorite accidents related to its cytotoxicity, which is a concern when using NaOCl (26-27). During instrumentation of the root canal, a smear layer is produced that consists of organic and inorganic substances including microorganisms, necrotic material, and remnants of odontoblastic processes (28). The smear layer blocks the dentinal tubules thereby preventing disinfection by the irrigant. Peters et al examined teeth with periapical lesions and found bacteria present in the dentinal tubules close to the cementum (29). Baumgartner and Mader found that while NaOCl was able to remove the pulp tissue and predentin in instrumented canals it did not remove the smear layer. Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) was capable of removing the inorganic smear layer but not the pulp tissue or predentin. When both were used in alternating combination, the smear layer, pulp tissue, and predentin were all removed, exposing the orifices of the dentinal tubules and providing disinfection therein (30). In addition, Bystrom and Sundqvist showed, in an in vivo study, that the use of 5% NaOCl and EDTA was more effective in reducing the bacterial load than the use of NaOCl alone (31). Thus, if NaOCl is to be used as the main irrigant, another solution must be used as an adjunct in removal of the smear layer. Precautions should also be taken when using NaOCl so as not to overly expose the dentin and thereby weaken it. Grigoratos et al evaluated the effect of 3% and 5% NaOCl on the flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of standardized dentine bars. After a 2 hour exposure time, a significant decrease in both the flexural strength and modulus of elasticity was found but no difference between the two concentrations was noted (32). While important to understand, a two hour exposure time does not - 6 -
necessarily correlate with the typical clinical exposure time of NaOCl to the dentinal tubules during endodontic therapy. However, Marending et al later performed a similar study comparing the effects of 2.5% NaOCl and 17% EDTA individually and when used alternatively on the elastic modulus and flexure strength of dentin bars when exposed for only 24 minutes and 3 minutes, respectively. No statistical difference in elastic modulus values after exposure to either solution when compared to pure saline was found. In contrast, flexure strength was significantly reduced when exposed to NaOCl. Thus, NaOCl can cause undesirable reduction in flexure strength, thereby weakening the tooth after a minimum dentin exposure of only 24 minutes (33). The actions of NaOCl are a result of the halogen chloride s reactivity. In water, NaOCl ionizes to sodium (Na + ) and hypochlorite (OCl - ). The hypochlorite ion then establishes equilibrium with hypochlorous acid (HOCl). At a high ph of 9 and above, the hypochlorite ion predominates, whereas at neutral or acidic ph, chlorine exists predominantly as hypochlorous acid (34). Hypochlorous acid is a more effective antimicrobial than the hypochlorite ion (34). Studies show that the hypochlorous acid disrupts several vital functions of the microbial cell resulting in death. Barrette et al showed that in the presence of hypochlorous acid bacterial cells permanently lost the ability to produce ATP, resulting in cell death (35). McKenna and Davies showed a correlation between reduction in both DNA synthesis and protein synthesis as the exposure time and concentration of hypochlorous acid increased (36). Arnhold et al discovered that hypochlorous acid reacts with double bonds of unsaturated phospholipids and fatty acids (37). More recently, Prutz confirmed interactions between hypochlorous acid and the amine, thio, and disulfide groups of amino acids, nucleotides, and - 7 -
corresponding DNA. He suggested the mechanism of action is chlorination of the microbial molecules rather than the conventional theory of oxidation (38). Regardless of the exact mechanism, NaOCl causes alterations within the cells it enters that ultimately result in death. Because NaOCl is not a perfect irrigant, or rather it does not posses all the ideal properties and does have associated risks, other disinfectants have been investigated for use as endondontic irrigants. For example, Chorhexidine digluconate (CHX) is a strong base that has been shown to be a powerful antibacterial agent. In fact, in an in vitro study on infected, freshly extracted human teeth, Jeansonne and White found no significant difference in antimicrobial effectiveness between 2% CHX and 5.25% NaOCl when either was used throughout instrumentation and as the final rinse (39). In regards to cytotoxicity, 2% CHX has been used in periodontal therapy without any irritating effect on the gingival tissue (40). However, CHX is not capable of dissolving tissue. Naenni et al incubated pig palates in a 10% solution of CHX and found that it had no substantial tissue dissolving capacity (41). Furthermore, CHX cannot eliminate LPS any better than NaOCl (22). One in vivo study showed that after chemomechanical preparation using CHX gel in infected necrotic teeth, 99.97% of the bacteria were eradicated but only a 44% reduction in endotoxin concentration occurred (42). Also, CHX is not capable of disinfecting and removing the biofilm complex found in necrotic teeth (17, 18). Therefore, it is not recommended as the main irrigant. One beneficial property of CHX is its substantivity. An in vitro study showed that CHX can adhere to hydroxyapatite and tooth surfaces (43). Furthermore, as the environmental concentration of CHX decreases, attached CHX is released, potentially - 8 -
providing long-term antimicrobial activity (43). White et al confirmed its continued antimicrobial property at 72 hours when using the 2% CHX solution (44). Due to its substantivity, CHX has been recommended as the final irrigant prior to obturation. In fact, Zamany et al found significantly less bacteria following treatment when 2% CHX was used as an additional rinse after 1% NaOCl (45). More recently, Baca et al found that after rinsing dentin blocks with a 2% CHX solution, 100% biofilm inhibition occurred after a 24 hour exposure to E. faecalis, while a rinse with 2.5% NaOCl only inhibited 18% of the biofilm formation (46). Thus CHX is advantageous to use as the final but not main irrigant. Chelating solutions such as EDTA and citric acid have been recommended for use as adjuncts to NaOCl to help remove the smear layer. Zaccaro et al found both 10% citric acid and 17% EDTA to effectively decalcify instrumented teeth in vitro at 3, 10, and 15 minutes with no significant difference between the two acids (47). Either solution by itself cannot be used as the main irrigant, however, since each lack the ability to effectively kill microorganisms (48). Currently the recommended sequence of irrigants is NaOCl throughout instrumentation for its dissolving and antimicrobial properties followed by EDTA for removal of the smear layer and a final rinse with CHX for additional broad spectrum antibacterial effectiveness and substantivity (10). New irrigating agents brought to market recently attempt to improve upon existing properties of the already mentioned irrigants and/or combine the properties into a two in one solution to reduce disinfection time during therapy. SmearClear (Sybron Endo, Orange, CA) is one such product. It combines EDTA with a detergent in hopes to - 9 -
lower its surface tension and thereby improve its penetration into the dentinal tubules. In vitro studies thus far, however, have shown no improvements in smear layer removal between SmearClear, EDTA or citric acid (49, 50). Similarly, the product Chlor-XTRA (Vista Dental Products, Racine, WI) combines hypochlorite with a detergent. Studies thus far show an increase in speed of tissue dissolving effectiveness of NaOCl with the added detergent (51). Surfactants have also been added to CHX with significant benefits. Shen et al found CHX-Plus (CHX with surfactants, Vista Dental Products, Racine, WI) to have higher levels of bactericidal activity on exposed biofilm than 2% CHX (52). MTAD (BioPure MTAD; Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) was developed for use after irrigating with NaOCl to improve upon current chelating agents by removing the smear layer and disinfecting the root canal system with one agent. It consists of doxycycline, citric acid, and a detergent, Tween 80 (53). In a published in vitro study by the developers, 17% EDTA and MTAD both effectively removed the smear layer in instrumented canals that had been previously irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl. However, EDTA caused significantly more erosion in the coronal portion of the canal than MTAD. Interestingly, it has been recommended not to rinse with EDTA for over one minute (54), yet in this study the rinse was for 5 minutes. Regarding antimicrobial effectiveness, the developers showed that 1.3% NaOCl with MTAD as a final rinse was significantly more effective against E. faecalis grown in extracted teeth than 5.25% NaOCl with EDTA (55). In contrast, others have performed similar studies but either found no difference in the antimicrobial efficacy between the two protocols (56) or significantly more - 10 -
bacteria remaining in the canal with the 1.3%NaOCl/MTAD group (57). Also, in direct comparison to NaOCl, while NaOCl is capable of disinfecting and removing the biofilm complex found in necrotic teeth, MTAD is not (17, 18). Finally, in a randomized, controlled, double-blinded clinical trial, researchers found that a final rinse with MTAD did not reduce bacterial counts beyond levels achieved after canal preparation with 1.3% NaOCl (58). Therefore, the benefits of MTAD remain questionable. Tetraclean (Ogna Laboratori Farmaceutici, Milano, Italy) was recently developed with similar ingredients and purpose as MTAD. The purpose was for smear layer removal with the added benefit of antimicrobial activity. Tetraclean differs from MTAD in type of detergent included (polypropylene glycol verses Tween for MTAD) and amount of doxycycline (50mg/5ml vs. 150mg/5ml of MTAD) (59). In regards to antimicrobial ability, Giardino et al compared Tetraclean to MTAD and 5.25% NaOCl for antibacterial effectiveness against E. faecalis biofilms. Although NaOCl proved significantly more effective than the two former solutions, Tetraclean was significantly better than MTAD in reducing the bacterial load (60). Another benefit of Tetraclean, according to Giardino is its lower surface tension when compared to 5.25% NaOCl, 17% EDTA, Smearclear, or MTAD, which may allow deeper penetration into dentinal tubules (59). Additional studies confirming the previous results by authors other than the primary developer would be prudent. A concern of tetracycline related to tooth staining and antibiotic resistance has been raised due to the presence of doxycycline in both MTAD and Tetraclean (61). Another recently introduced product is QMix TM (Tulsa Dental Specialties, Johnson City, TN). It is advertised as an antimicrobial and smear layer removal agent to - 11 -
be used after NaOCl (a 2 in 1 solution). QMix TM is a combination of bisbiguanide- an antimicrobial agent, polyaminocarboxylic acid- a chelating agent, saline, and a surfactant-for lower surface tension. A recent study on extracted teeth using an open canal system showed QMix TM to be equally effective as 17% EDTA in removing the smear layer (62). Additional studies are required for further investigation concerning antimicrobial effectiveness. Currently there is no irrigant that possesses all the properties of an ideal endodontic disinfectant. There is not an irrigant that completely disinfects or sterilizes the entire tooth with the current techniques used in root canal treatment (63). The search for a new and improved product continues. Recently a novel disinfectant named STERIPLEX TM (sbiomed, Orem, UT) was introduced to the market. STERIPLEX TM is a peroxyacetic acid (PAA)-based chemical disinfectant that is available in two concentrations: 0.25% PAA (STERIPLEX TM HC) and 1.3% PAA (STERIPLEX TM Ultra). STERIPLEX TM Ultra is available only to the military specifically for the decontamination of anthrax spores while STERIPLEX TM HC (Health Care) is available to the public for disinfection of surfaces. According to the material safety data sheet, STERIPLEX TM HC is a two part system that when combined, creates an effective sterilant/sporicide, tuberculocide, antiviral, bactericide and deodorizer. The combined ingredients include peroxyacetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, glycerol, ethanol, sorbitol, silver, and water. The patented formula has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, is non-corrosive to the skin, does not exhibit oral or inhalational toxicities and stimulates only mild irritation when sprayed in the eyes. The solution is also non-oxidizing to materials and therefore is non-corrosive (64). An - 12 -
independent laboratory study, as discussed in the white paper, claims STERIPLEX TM Ultra to exhibit exceptionally fast sporicidal kinetics, being able to kill B. subtilis spores in suspension about 1,000 times faster than CIDEX TM, a commonly used sporicide that contains glutaraldehyde (65). Disinfectants capable of destroying spores in the past such as aldehydes (glutaraldehyde), peroxygens (peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide), ethylene oxide, and of particular interest to our specialty chlorine-releasing agents (hypochlorite) can be toxic to humans, corrosive to various materials, and may require long contact times (66, 67). There are currently no published studies by an unpaid third party to validate the present statements concerning the effectiveness of STERIPLEX TM. Individually, the ingredients in STERIPLEX TM have been studied. PAA, the active ingredient in STERIPLEX TM, is a strong oxidizer on most macromolecules and has been shown to be bactericidal, sporicidal, and fungicidal at concentrations < 0.3% (34). Unlike NaOCl (68), PAA remains active in the presence of organic material (69). Naenni et al found that 10% PAA is incapable of dissolving necrotic tissue (70). De-Deus et al found that a 0.5% PAA exposure for 60 seconds is as effective as 17% EDTA for removal of the smear layer (71). Dornelles-Morgental et al found 1% PAA to be a less effective antibacterial agent than 2.5% NaOCl, 2% CHX and other irrigants against E. faecalis (72). STERIPLEX TM HC could prove to be an effective disinfectant in root canal therapy. The first step would be to verify its antimicrobial effectiveness against the gold standard, NaOCl. The purpose of this study was to compare the antimicrobial activity of STERIPLEX TM HC with 5.25% NaOCl on Enterococcus faecalis. Because of its - 13 -
prevalence in persistent endodontic infections, E. faecalis was chosen as the test organism (73, 74, 75). - 14 -
Materials and Methods E. faecalis was cultured in Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) broth overnight at 37 C. The next day an optical density (OD) spectrophotometer reading at 660nm wavelength (Unicam Helios Delta, England) was taken to verify growth. After which, 980 µl of the cell culture suspension was combined with 420 µl glycerol. Aliquots were then created by pipetting 50 µl of the E. faecalis/glycerol suspension into 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tubes. The aliquots were stored in a freezer at 70 C. The E. faecalis V583 was a clinical isolate obtained from Thomas et al (76). A 5.25% NaOCl (A-1 Commercial; James Austin Company, Mars, PA) and unmixed STERIPLEX TM HC (sbiomed, Orem, UT) solution was acquired and stored at room temperature. The STERIPLEX TM HC solution was mixed as directed prior to each experiment. A 5% sodium thiosulfate solution was created to neutralize the NaOCl solution. The STERIPLEX TM HC neutralizer consisted of 12.7 ml Tween80, 6.0 g Tamol, 1.7 g Lecithin, 1.0 g Peptone, 1.0 Cysteine, 25 ml 2M Tris ph 7.0, and 55 ml distilled water. The protocol was obtained from Richard Robinson at Brigham Young University. The STERIPLEX TM HC neutralizer was prepared immediately prior to each experiment due to precipitation of ingredients over time. Preliminary studies showed that each neutralizer was effective at both neutralizing its respective solution and not altering the CFU/ml of E. faecalis. - 15 -
The day preceding each experiment, an aliquot was removed from the freezer and 5 µl of the E. faecalis/glycerol suspension was added to 10 ml of BHI broth. The culture was incubated at 37 C overnight. An OD 660 nm reading was taken before each experiment to verify growth. Prior to the experiment, phosphate buffered saline (PBS) was added to the disinfectants to create the desired final concentration (50%, 25%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%) after combination with the E. faecalis. For example, PBS was not added to any disinfectant for the 50% suspension since it was to contain 50% E. faecalis suspension and 50% disinfectant. However for the 25% suspension, 500 µl of PBS was added to 500 µl of the disinfectant prior to contact with E. faecalis. Likewise, 800 µl of PBS was added to 200 µl of the disinfectant for the 10% suspension, 980 µl of PBS was added to 20 µl of the disinfectant for the 1% suspension, and 998 µl of PBS was added to 2 µl of disinfectant for the 0.1% concentration. Under a hood, 1 ml of the E. faecalis suspension was dispensed into each of two tubes (15 ml polypropylene tube). At time zero, 1 ml of each disinfectant (for the 50% suspension) or disinfectant/pbs solution (for all other suspensions) was placed in one of the tubes. Both tubes were vortexed for 5 seconds. At 1, 3 and 5 minutes, 10 µl of the E. faecalis/disinfectant suspension was removed from each tube and placed into a tube (1.5 ml polypropylene micro-centrifuge tube) containing 990 µl of the corresponding neutralizer and vortexed for 3 seconds. The experiment was repeated three times for each suspension. The neutralized suspension was serially diluted in PBS. The number of viable organisms in selected dilution tubes was assayed by drop plating using the Miles and - 16 -
Misra technique (77). In brief, each agar plate was divided into six sections. For each dilution, 20 µl was transferred to each of 3 spots in a given section of a plate. Plating was performed in duplicate, such that there were six spots for CFU counting per dilution. The plates were incubated at 37 C overnight. The following morning, the CFU s were counted using Alpha Innotech Imager 2200 (Cell Bioscience, Santa Clara, CA) and CFU/ml determined using the appropriate dilution. The original concentration of E. faecalis was determined by using the same protocol as previously described except with PBS in place of the disinfectant. The STERIPLEX TM HC neutralizer was chosen as the neutralizer solution to which would be added the E. faecalis/pbs solution since preliminary experiments showed neither neutralizer to have any effect on the number of CFU/ml of E. faecalis. A negative control was performed by plating all solutions and agar by itself to verify the agar and reactants used were sterile, or in other words not contaminated. Statistical analysis was completed to compare the disinfectants at each time interval for each suspension with the original E. faecalis concentration and with each other. The log-transformed values were analyzed using ANOVA and then the estimates back-transformed into geometric means for interpretation. - 17 -
Results The OD readings of the E. faecalis cultures grown overnight for the 50%, 25% and 10% dilution tests were 1.22, 1.267 and 1.233 respectively. Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the mean CFU/ml of planktonic E. faecalis after exposure to a 50%, 25% and 10% dilution of 5.25% NaOCl or STERIPLEX TM HC at 1, 3 and 5 minutes. The mean CFU/ml for the positive control group was 1.625 10 7 for the 50% and 10% suspension and 1.761 10 7 for the 25% suspension. The 50%, 25% and 10% dilution of 5.25% NaOCl and STERIPLEX TM HC reduced the CFU/ml to below the limit of detection (50 CFU/ml) at all three time intervals. Statistical analysis was not performed on any of these suspensions since a complete kill was achieved by both disinfectants at all time intervals. The negative controls showed no growth for all the experiments. - 18 -
CFU/ml Planktonic E. Faecalis CFU/ml Planktonic E. Faecalis 100,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1 0 Control 1 min. 3 min. 5 min. NaOCl Steriplex Figure 1: 50% Disinfectant Suspension 100,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1 0 Control 1 min. 3 min. 5 min. NaOCl Steriplex Figure 2: 25% Disinfectant Suspension - 19 -
CFU/ml Planktonic E. Faecalis 100,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1 0 Control 1 min. 3 min. 5 min. NaOCl Steriplex Figure 3: 10% Disinfectant Suspension The OD reading of the E. faecalis culture grown overnight for the 1% dilution test was 1.21. Figure 4 shows the mean CFU/ml of planktonic E. faecalis after exposure to a 1% dilution of 5.25% NaOCl or STERIPLEX TM HC at 1, 3 and 5 minutes. The numeric values are shown in Table 1. The mean CFU/ml for the positive control group was 1.649 10 7. The corresponding 95% Confidence Interval (CI) indicates a 95% confidence that the CFU s counted will range between 1.338 10 7 and 2.033 10 7 CFU/ml. The 1% dilution of 5.25% NaOCl reduced the CFU/ml to 8.043 10 5 at 1 minute with a 95% CI between 7.128 10 5 and 9.077 10 5. In contrast, the 1% dilution of STERIPLEX TM HC only reduced the CFU/ml to 1.605 10 7 at 1 minute with a 95% CI between 1.422 10 7 and 1.811 10 7. The 1% dilution of 5.25% NaOCl at 3 minutes reduced the CFU/ml to 5.993 10 4 with a 95% CI between 5.310 10 4 and 6.763 10 4. In contrast, the 1% dilution of STERIPLEX TM HC at 3 minutes only reduced the CFU/ml to 1.598 10 7 with a 95% CI between 1.416 10 7 and 1.803 10 7. The 1% dilution of 5.25% NaOCl at 5-20 -
CFU/ml Planktonic E. Faecalis minutes reduced the CFU/ml to 6.582 10 3 with a 95% CI between 5.833 10 3 and 7.428 10 3. In contrast, the 1% dilution of STERIPLEX TM HC at 5 minutes only reduced the CFU/ml to 1.646 10 7 with a 95% CI between 1.459 10 7 and 1.858 10 7. 100,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1 0 Control 1 min. 3 min. 5 min. NaOCl Steriplex Figure 4: 1% Disinfectant Suspension The ANOVA results comparing the log-transformed CFU/ml for the 1% dilutions indicated that the seven groups shown in Table 1 and Figure 4 were different (P <.0001). There was a significant difference between the control and the NaOCl groups (P <.0001). The 1, 3, and 5 minute NaOCl groups were each significantly below the control mean (Ps all < 0.0001). The STERIPLEX TM HC means were not significantly different than the control mean (P = 0.98). The 1% suspensions at each of the time intervals show NaOCl was significantly more effective than STERIPLEX TM HC (Ps all <.0001) in reducing the CFU/ml count. - 21 -
CFU/ml Planktonic E. Faecalis Table 1: 1% Results Comparison of CFU/ml across the groups CFU/ml Geometric Mean Agent Estimate 95% CI Control 1.649E+07 1.338E+07 2.033E+07 NaOCl 1min 8.043E+05 7.128E+05 9.077E+05 NaOCl 3min 5.993E+04 5.310E+04 6.763E+04 NaOCl 5min 6.582E+03 5.833E+03 7.428E+03 Stpx 1min 1.605E+07 1.422E+07 1.811E+07 Stpx 3min 1.598E+07 1.416E+07 1.803E+07 Stpx 5min 1.646E+07 1.459E+07 1.858E+07 100,000,000 10,000,000 1,000,000 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1 0 Control 1 min. 3 min. 5 min. NaOCl Steriplex Figure 5: 0.1% Disinfectant Suspension The OD reading of the E. faecalis solution grown overnight for the 0.1% suspension test was 1.208. Figure 5 shows the mean CFU/ml of planktonic E. faecalis after exposure to a 0.1% suspension of 5.25% NaOCl or STERIPLEX TM HC at 1, 3 and 5-22 -
minutes. The numeric values are shown in Table 2. The mean CFU/ml for the positive control group was 1.624 10 7 with a 95% CI range between 1.517 10 7 and 1.738 10 7 CFU/ml. The 0.1% suspension of 5.25% NaOCl reduced the CFU/ml to 1.552 10 7 at 1 minute with a 95% CI between 1.492 10 7 and 1.614 10 7. In contrast, the 0.1% suspension of STERIPLEX TM HC reduced the CFU/ml to 1.610 10 7 at 1 minute with a 95% CI between 1.548 10 7 and 1.675 10 7. The 0.1% suspension of 5.25% NaOCl at 3 minutes reduced the CFU/ml to 1.443 10 7 with a 95% CI between 1.388 10 7 and 1.501 10 7. In contrast, the 0.1% STERIPLEX TM HC at 3 minutes reduced the CFU/ml to 1.582 10 7 with a 95% CI between 1.521 10 7 and 1.646 10 7. The 0.1% suspension of 5.25% NaOCl at 5 minutes reduced the CFU/ml to 1.287 10 7 with a 95% CI between 1.237 10 7 and 1.338 10 7. In contrast, the 0.1% STERIPLEX TM HC at 5 minutes reduced the CFU/ml to 1.568 10 7 with a 95% CI between 1.508 10 7 and 1.631 10 7. Table 2: 0.1% Results Comparison of CFU/ml across the groups CFU/ml Geometric Mean Agent Estimate 95% CI Control 1.624E+07 1.517E+07 1.738E+07 NaOCl 1min 1.552E+07 1.492E+07 1.614E+07 NaOCl 3min 1.443E+07 1.388E+07 1.501E+07 NaOCl 5min 1.287E+07 1.237E+07 1.338E+07 Stpx 1min 1.610E+07 1.548E+07 1.675E+07 Stpx 3min 1.582E+07 1.521E+07 1.646E+07 Stpx 5min 1.568E+07 1.508E+07 1.631E+07 The ANOVA results comparing the log-transformed CFU/ml for the 0.1% suspensions indicated that the seven groups shown in Table 2 and Figure 5 were different (P <.0001). However, the NaOCl 1 minute group was not different than the control (P = - 23 -
0.25). The 3 and 5 minute NaOCl groups were significantly below the control mean (Ps all < 0.0037). The STERIPLEX TM HC means were not significantly different than the control mean (P = 0.72). The 0.1% suspensions of NaOCl and STERIPLEX HC at 1 minute, were not different (P = 0.7808), while at 3 minutes and 5 minutes the NaOCl was significantly more effective (P = 0.0098 and P <.0001, respectively). - 24 -
Discussion The main etiology of endodontic infections has been well documented to be of microbiotic origin (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). One of the primary purposes of non-surgical root canal therapy, therefore, is to eliminate the microorganisms and the associated infected and necrotic pulpal remnants in order to prevent or cure apical periodontitis. Because mechanical debridement of the canal alone is insufficient to disinfect the root canal (6, 7, 8), irrigants are required. NaOCl is the most commonly used irrigant because it possesses many of the desired characteristics of an ideal irrigant. Studies have shown that NaOCl is effective as an antimicrobial agent (11, 12, 17), at removing biofilm (18), and dissolving tissue (19, 20). However, NaOCl is not effective in eliminating LPS (22, 23), is associated with the risk of cytotoxicity (24, 26, 27), does not remove or prevent formation of a smear layer (30), and may cause reduction in flexural strength when exposed to dentin (33). Because of these limitations, other irrigants have been investigated for the purpose of replacing NaOCl or to be used in combination with NaOCl to increase effectiveness. Currently NaOCl is still most commonly used as the primary irrigant because of its unsurpassed antibacterial and dissolving capabilities. Still, even when various irrigating solutions are combined for optimal therapeutic goals, complete sterilization of the root canal remains difficult to achieve (63). Thus the search for an improved ideal irrigating solution in root canal therapy continues. The present study investigated a novel disinfectant, STERIPLEX TM HC, as a potential endodontic irrigant. STERIPLEX TM Ultra was recently developed for use in - 25 -
elimination of bacterial spores and is available only to the military. A less concentrated solution, STERIPLEX TM HC has been formulated for use in healthcare. Both products have shown rapid sporicidal activity (65). Currently, no studies have been completed which test the antimicrobial effectiveness of STERIPLEX TM HC against bacteria found in endodontic infections. The investigator felt it wise to begin tests by first evaluating the antibacterial effectiveness of STERIPLEX TM HC against the gold standard, NaOCl. In this study the antibacterial effectiveness of 5.25% NaOCl was compared with STERIPLEX TM HC using E. faecalis as the test organism. E. faecalis was chosen as the test organism because it is the dominant species recovered in failed endodontic cases (73-75) and has been used in previous experiments (78-85). The comparison was accomplished by performing a standard kill time suspension test and using a spot plating technique to count remaining colony forming units. Five different percentages of the total suspension (50%, 25%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%) of the two disinfectants were exposed to a planktonic solution of E. faecalis for 1, 3 and 5 minutes and were then assayed for remaining vital bacteria by counting CFU s on agar plates. A similar protocol has been implemented in previous studies to test antimicrobial effectiveness and was also implemented here (12, 79-81). For the purpose of comparison with previous NaOCl studies, the 50%, 25%, 10%, 1%, and 0.1% suspensions are approximately 5.25%, 2.6%, 1.05%, 0.1% and 0.01% NaOCl respectively. The results from the present study show that 5.25%, 2.6%, and 1.05% NaOCl reduced the CFU/ml to below the limit of detection (50 CFU/ml) after one minute. While the 0.1% NaOCl significantly reduced the quantity of bacteria after 1, 3 and 5 minutes (P all < 0.0001) it did not result in a complete kill. The 0.01% NaOCl was able to - 26 -
significantly reduce the quantity of bacteria after 3 and 5 minutes (P all < 0.0037) but also did not result in a complete kill. Previous studies on NaOCl with similar protocols show comparable results (12, 79-81) while those with a protocol more closely reflecting an in vivo study (e.g. infected dentinal tubules in extracted teeth) had more contrasting data (15, 78, 82-85). Vianna and Gomes tested the efficacy of NaOCl against E. faecalis using a similar protocol as the present study (79). They found 5.25% NaOCl completely inhibited any growth after just 30 seconds while 2.5% and 1% NaOCl required 3 minutes and 5 minutes respectively. Similarly, the present study found that 5.25% could completely inhibit growth or eradicate the E faecalis suspension in 60 seconds. In contrast, the present study found that both 2.6% and 1.3% NaOCl also achieved a complete kill in just 60 seconds. Radcliffe et al also used a similar protocol to determine the effectiveness of different concentrations of NaOCl at different time intervals against microbiota associated with refractory endodontic infections in planktonic solution (12). Similar to the present study, they found that 5.25% and 2.5% NaOCl reduced the CFU of E. faecalis to below the limit of detection (limit not given) in 2 and 5 minutes, respectively. In contrast, they found 1.0% NaOCl required 10 minutes to reduce the CFU to below the limit of detection while in the present study the 1.05% NaOCl reduced the CFU to below the limit of detection (50 CFU/ml) in 1 minute. Abdullah et al studied the effect 3% NaOCl had on a suspension of E. faecalis at different time intervals and found, similar to the present study, that one minute of exposure resulted in 100% bacterial reduction (80). In addition, Gomes et al performed a - 27 -
suspension test with E faecalis and found 5.25% NaOCl resulted in 100% inhibition of growth after 30 seconds but that 2.5%, 1% and 0.5% required 10, 20, and 30 minutes respectively for the same (81). Slight differences in the results from the present study and those in the past using similar protocols could be from small alterations in methods. For example, in the current study the mean bacteria concentration found in the suspension was 1.653 10 7 CFU/ml while those of other studies ranged from 1.5 10 8 CFU/ml to 9.6 10 9 CFU/ml. The initial bacterial concentration in suspension could impact the effectiveness of the disinfectant. Also, the strain of E. faecalis used could have had a significant impact on the result of other studies. Furthermore, a difference in ratios of NaOCl to E. faecalis could account for slight differences in the studies. Because suspension tests do not reflect the in vivo conditions in which bacteria may grow as biofilms and into the dentinal tubules, the results from such studies generally show NaOCl as more effective than those studies performed in the in vitro setting. For example, Retamozo et al recently found that 5.25% NaOCl required 40 minutes to completely eradicate the E. faecalis in contaminated dentin cylinders. As exposure time and concentration was decreased the presence of remaining E. faecalis increased, thus, showing a high concentration of 5.25% NaOCl at a long exposure interval of 40 minutes is required for elimination of E. faecalis in contaminated dentin (78). In contrast to the Retamozo study, Siqueira et al found no difference in the antimicrobial effectiveness of 1%, 2.5% and 5.25% NaOCl after instrumentation in extracted teeth contaminated with E. faecalis. All concentrations significantly reduced the bacterial load (15). It is important to note, however, that Siqueira et al used paper - 28 -
points in the main canal to sample for the presence of bacteria which permitted evaluation of the bacteriological conditions of only the main root canal. Retamozo et al allowed the treated dentin cylinders to remain in brain-heart infusion (BHI) broth for 72 hours before determining if the bacteria had been eliminated, which allowed evaluation of the entire root canal complex. In addition, Siquiera et al found that while the 1%, 2.5%, and 5.25% NaOCl reduced the bacterial percentage by 97.1%, 99.9%, and 99.8% respectively, bacteria were never thoroughly eliminated from the root canals as was accomplished in the Retamozo study. Finally, Siquiera et al did not indicate times of exposure. Similar studies using extracted teeth infected with E. faecalis have also failed to consistently eliminate all the E. faecalis contaminated within the dentinal tubules (82-85). Some reasons for the increase in difficulty to kill bacteria in teeth versus in a suspension test include the inhibitory effect of dentin on the disinfectant (86) and the challenge to penetrate into the dentinal tubules for direct contact with the bacteria. While an in vitro test does not always reflect what is encountered clinically, it is beneficial for the initial comparison of test solutions as was performed in the present study. The results in the present study indicate that STERIPLEX TM HC performed similar to the 5.25% NaOCl in reducing the CFU to zero when used at 50%, 25% and 10% of the total suspension. However, the 5.25% NaOCl was more effective than STERIPLEX HC in killing E. faecalis when it consisted of only 1% of the suspension after 1 minute of exposure. The same was true for the 0.1% suspension of disinfectant when exposed to E. faecalis for 3 and 5 minutes. It is important to note that the concentration at which to use NaOCl has not been set forth. Indeed, in the endodontic community there is debate as to which concentration - 29 -
performs best with the least cytotoxicity. The STERIPLEX HC solution, however, does have a set concentration which is the full concentration. At that concentration the solution performed well. In fact, even when diluted three times its directed use, it performed similarly to the NaOCl. However, while NaOCl has been well studied, STERIPLEX HC just recently came to market and as such additional studies are required. It would be interesting to study the possible cytotoxicity of STERIPLEX HC on periapical tissue given the company s statement that when used as a disinfectant it is non-corrosive to the skin, does not exhibit oral or inhalational toxicities and stimulates only mild irritation when sprayed in the eyes (64). It would also be interesting to study if STERIPLEX HC possesses the ability to remove the smear layer and compare it to EDTA. PAA is the active ingredient in STERIPLEX HC and 0.5% PAA has been shown to be as effective as 17% EDTA in removing the smear layer after a 60 second exposure (71). Other studies could be performed to elucidate if STERIPLEX HC possesses any properties of substantivity similar to CHX so as to replace CHX as an improved final rinse. It is unknown if STERIPLEX HC remains active in the presence of dentin but it has been shown that dentin reduces the antimicrobial effectiveness of NaOCl and CHX (86). It would be interesting to know if STERIPLEX HC deactivates LPS. In addition, it would be interesting to determine if STERIPLEX HC reduces the flexural strength of dentin as does NaOCl (33). In conclusion, 5.25% NaOCl is more effective than STERIPLEX HC in reducing the CFU of E. faecalis in a suspension test at 1 minute for the 1% suspension (P <.0001) and at 3 and 5 minutes for the 0.1% suspension (P = 0.0098, P <.0001, respectively). However, when 50%, 25%, or 10% of the solution consisted of 5.25% - 30 -
NaOCl or STERIPLEX HC, the CFU was reduced to zero in one minute. Further studies are thus warranted to determine if STERIPLEX HC posses other properties of an ideal endodontic irrigant when used at 50%, 25% or 10% of the total suspension. - 31 -
References 1. Kakehashi S, Stanley HR, Fitzgeralad RJ. The effects of surgical exposures of dental pulps in germ-free and conventional laboratory rats. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1965; 20:340-9. 2. Sundqvist G. Bacteriological studies of necrotic dental pulps. University of Umea Odontology Dissertation no. 7. Umea, Sweden. 1976; 1-94. 3. Moller AJR, Fabricius L, Dahlen G, Ohman AE, Heyden G. Influence on periapical tissues of indigenous oral bacteria and necrotic pulp tissue in monkeys. Scand J Dent Res. 1981; 89:475-84. 4. Lin LM, Di Fiore PM, Lin JL, Rosenberg PA. Histological study of periradicular tissue responses to uninfected and infected devitalized pulp in dogs. J Endod 2006; 32:34-38. 5. Sjogren U, Figdor D, Persson S, Sundqvist G. Influence of infection at the time of root filling on the outcome of endodontic treatment of teeth with apical periodontitis. Int Endod J. 1997; 30: 297-306. 6. Bystrom A, Sundqvist G. Bacteriologic evaluation of the efficacy of mechanical root canal instrumentation in endodontic therapy. Scand J Dent Res. 1981; 89:321. 7. Dalton BC, Orstavik D, Phillips C, Pettiette M, Trope M. Bacterial reduction with nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation. J Endod. 1998; 24:763. 8. Peters OA, Schonenberger K, Laib A. Effects of four Ni-Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography. Int Endod J. 2001; 34:221-30. 9. Metzger Z, Basrani B, Goodis HE. Instruments, Material, and Devices. In Hargreaves KM, Cohen S editors: Cohen s Pathways of the Pulp.10th ed, St Louis, Missouri, Mosby Elsevier, 2011; pp 223-282. 10. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod. 2006; 32:389-98. - 32 -
11. Bystrom A, Sundqvist G. Bacteriologic evaluation of the effect of 0.5 percent sodium hypochlorite in endodontic therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1983; 55:307-12. 12. Radcliffe CE, Potouridou L, Qureshi R, Habahbeh N, Qualtrough A, Worthing H, et al. Antimicrobial activity of varying concentrations of sodium hypochlorite on the endodontic microorganisms Actinomyces israelii, A. naeslundii, Candida albicans and Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J. 2004; 37:438. 13. Barnard D, Davies J, Figdor D. Susceptibility of Actinomyces israelii to antibiotics, sodium hypochlorite and calcium hydroxide. Int Endod J. 1996; 29:320. 14. Waltimo T, Orstavik D, Siren E, Haapasalo M. In vitro susceptibility of Candida albicans to four disinfectants and their combinations. Int Endod J. 1999; 32:421. 15. Siqueira JF, Rocas IN, Favieri A, Lima KC. Chemomechanical reduction of Bacterial population in the root canal after instrumentation and irrigation with 1%, 2.5%, and 5.25% Sodium Hypochlorite. J Endod. 2000; 26:331-34. 16. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science. 1999; 284:1318-22. 17. Dunavant TR, Regan JD, Glickman GN, Solomon ES, Honeyman AL. Comparative evaluation of endodontic irrigants against Enterococcus faecalis biofilms. J Endod. 2006; 32:527-31. 18. Clegg MS, Vertucci FJ, Walker C, Belanger M, Brito LR. The effect of exposure to irrigant solutions on apical dentin biofilms in vitro. J Endod. 2006; 32:434-7. 19. Hand HE, Smith ML, Harrison. Analysis of the effect of dilution on necrotic tissue dissolution property of sodium hypochlorite. J Endod 1978; 4:60-4. 20. Rosenfeld EF, James GA, Burch BS. Vital pulp tissue response to sodium hypochlorite. J Endod. 1978; 4:140-6. 21. Dwyer TG, Torabinejad M. Radiographic and histologic evaluation of the effect of endotoxin on the periapical tissues of the cat. J Endod 1981; 7:31-5. 22. Buck RA, Cai J, Eleazer PD, Staat RH, Hurst HE. Detoxification of endotoxin by endodontic irrigants and calcium hydroxide. J Endod. 2002; 28:779-83. 23. Martinho FC, Gomes BP. Quantification of endotoxins and cultivable bacteria in root canal infection before and after chemomechanical preparation with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. J Endod. 2008; 34:268. - 33 -
24. Simbula G, Dettori C, Camboni T, Cotti E. Comparison of tetraacetylethylendiamine + sodium perborate and sodium hypochlorite cytoxicity on L929 fibroblasts. J Endod. 2010; 36:1516-20. 25. Harrison JW, Svec TA, Baumgartner JC. Analysis of clinical toxicity of endodontic irrigants. J Endod. 1978; 4:6-11. 26. Hulsmann M, Hahn W. Complications during root canal irrigation-literature review and case reports. Int Endod J. 2000; 33:186-93. 27. Kleier DJ, Averbach RE, Mehdipour O. The sodium hypochlorite accident: experience of diplomats of the American Board of Endodontics. J Endod. 2008; 34:1346-50. 28. Torabinejad M, Handysides R, Khademi AA, Bakland LK. Clinical implications of the smear layer in endodontics: A review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002; 94:658-66. 29. Peters LB, Wesselink PR, Buijs JF, Winkelhoff AJ. Viable bacteria in root dentinal tubules of teeth with apical periodontitis. J Endod. 2001;27:76-81. 30. Baumgartner JC, Mader CL. A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of four root canal irrigation regimens. J Endod. 1987; 13:147-57. 31. Bystrom A, Sundqvist G. The antibacterial action of sodium hypochlorite and EDTA in 60 cases of endodontic therapy. Int Endod J. 1985; 18:35-40. 32. Grigoratos D, Knowles J, Ng Y-L, Gulabivala K. Effect of exposing dentine to sodium hypochlorite and calcium hydroxide on its flexural strength and elastic modulus. Int Endod J. 2001; 34:113-9. 33. Marending M, Paque F, Fischer J, Zehnder M. Impact of irrigant sequence on mechanical properties of human root dentin. J Endod. 2007; 33:1325-28. 34. McDonnell G, Russell DA. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999; 12:147-79. 35. Barrette WC, Hannum DM, Wheeler WD, Hurst JK. General mechanism for the bacterial toxicity of hypochlorous acid: abolition of ATP production. Biochemistry. 1989; 28:9172-8. 36. McKenna SM, Davies KJA. The inhibition of bacterial growth by hypochlorous acid. Biochem J. 1988; 254:685-92. 37. Arnhold J, Panasenko OM, Schiller J, Vladimirov YA, Arnold K. The action of hypochlorous acid on phosphatidylcholine liposomes in dependence on the - 34 -
content of double bonds. Stoichiometry and NMR analysis. Chemistry and Physics of Lipids. 1995; 78:55-64. 38. Prutz WA. Hypochlorous acid interactions with thiols, nucleotides, DNA and other biological substrates. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics. 1996; 332:110-20. 39. Jeansonne MJ, White RR. A comparison of 2.0% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite as antimicrobial endodontic irrigants. J Endod. 1994; 20:276-8. 40. Southard SR, Drisko CL, KilloyWJ, Cobb CM, Tira DE. The effect of 2% chlorhexidine digluconate irrigation on clinical parameters and the level of Bacteroides gingivalis in periodontal pockets. J Periodontol. 1989; 60:302-9. 41. Naenni N, Thoma K, Zehnder M. Soft tissue dissolution capacity of currently used and potential endodontic irrigants. J Endod. 2004; 30:785-7. 42. Vianna ME, Horz HP, Conrads G, Zaia AA, Souza-Filho FJ, Gomes BPFA. Effect of root canal procedures on endotoxins and endodontic pathogens. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 2007; 22:411-18. 43. Rolla G, Loe H, Schiott CR. The affinity of chlorhexidine for hydroxyapatite and salivary mucins. J Periodont Res. 1970; 5:90-5. 44. White RR, Hays GL, Janer LR. Residual antimicrobial activity after canal irrigation with chlorhexidine. J Endod. 1997; 4: 229-31. 45. Zamany A, Safavi K, Spangberg LSW. The effect of chlorhexidine as an endodontic disinfectant. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path. 2003; 96:578-81. 46. Baca P, Junco P, Arias-Moliz MT, Gonzalez-Rodriguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM. Residual and antimicrobial activity of final irrigation protocols on Enterococcus faecalis biofilm in dentin. J Endod. 2011; 37: 363-6. 47. Zaccaro Scelza MF, Teizeira AM, Scelza P. Decalcifying effect of EDTA-T, 10% citric acid, and 17% EDTA on root canal dentin. Oral Sur Oral Med Oral Pathol. 2002; 95:234-6. 48. Arias-Moliz MT, Ferrer-Luque CM, Espigares-Garcia M, Baca P. Enterococcus faecalis biofilms eradication by root canal irrigants. J Endod. 2009; 35:711-14. 49. Khedmat S, Shokouhinejad N. Comparison of the efficacy of three chelating agents in smear layer removal. J Endod. 2008; 34:599-602. - 35 -
50. Bezerra da Silva LA, Sanguino ACM, Rocha CT, Leonardo MR, Silva RAB. Scanning electron microscopic preliminary study of the efficacy of SmearClear and EDTA for smear layer removal after root canal instrumentation in permanent teeth. J Endod. 2008; 34:1541-1544. 51. Stojicic S, Zivkovic S, Qian W, Zhang H, Haapasalo M. Tissue dissolution by sodium hypochlorite: effect of concentration, temperature, agitation, and surfactant. J Endod. 2010; 36:1558-1562. 52. Shen Y, Stojicic S, Haapasalo M. Antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine against bacteria in biofilms at different stages of development. J Endod. 2011; 37:657-661. 53. Torabinejad M, Khademi AA, Babagoli J, Cho Y, Johnson WB, Bozhilov K, Kim J, Shabahang S. A new solution for the removal of the smear layer. J Endod. 2003; 29:170-5. 54. Calt S, Serper A. Time-dependent effects of EDTA on dentin structures. J Endod. 2002; 28:17-9. 55. Shabahang S, Torabinejad M. Effect of MAD on Enterococcus faecaliscontaminated root canals of extracted human teeth. J Endod. 2003; 29:576-9. 56. Kho P, Baumgartner JC. A comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of NaOCl/Biopure MTAD versus NaOCl/EDTA against Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod. 2006; 32:652-5. 57. Baumgartner JC, Johal S, Marshall JG. Comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of 1.3% NaOCl/BioPure MTAD to 5.25% NaOCl/15% EDTA for root canal irrigation. J Endod. 2007; 33:48-51. 58. Malkhassian G, Manzur AF, Legner M, Fillery ED, Manek S, Basrani BR, Friedman S. Antibacterial efficacy of MTAD final rinse and two percent chlorhexidine gel medication in teeth with apical periodontitis: A randomized double-blinded clinical trial. J Endod. 2009; 35:1483-90. 59. Giardino L, Ambu E, Becce C, Rimondini L, Morra M. Surface tension comparison of four common root canal irrigants and two new irrigants containing antibiotic. J Endod. 2006; 32:1091-93. 60. Giardino L, Ambu E, Savoldi E, Rimondini R, Cassanelli C, Debbia EA. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of sodium hypochlorite, MTAD, and Tetraclean against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm. J Endod. 2007; 33:852-55. - 36 -
61. Tay FR, Mazzoni A, Pashley DH, Day TE, Ngoh EC, Breschi L. Potential iatrogenic tetracycline staining of endodontically treated teeth via NaOCl/MTAD irrigation: A preliminary report. J Endod. 2006; 32:354-8. 62. Dai L, Khechen K, Dhan S, Gillen B, Loushine BA, Wimmer CE, Gutmann JL, Pashley D, Tay FR. The effect of QMix, an experimental antibacterial root canal irrigant, on removal of canal wall smear layer and debris. J Endod. 2011; 37:80-84. 63. Nair PNR. Henry S, Cano V, Vera J. Microbial status of apical root canal system of human mandibular first molars with primary apical periodontitis after onevisit endodontic treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005; 99:231-52. 64. STERIPLEX TM ; MSDS [online]; sbiomed: Orem, UT. March 26, 2011, http://steriplex.com/products/steriplex_hc_msds.php (accessed July 22, 2011). 65. Brigham Young University, Department of Microbiology and Molecular Biology. (2010). Differential Response of Bacillus Anthracis and other Spore Species to Sporicidal Disinfectants [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.sbiomed.com/pdf/steriplex%20hc%20whitepaper.pdf 66. Sagripanti JL, Bonifacino A. Comparative sporicidal effects of liquid chemical agents. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996; 62:545-51. 67. Russell AD. Bacterial spores and chemical sporicidal agents. Clinical Microbiol Rev. 1990; 3:99-119. 68. Bloomfield SF, Uso EE. The antibacterial properties of sodium hypochlorite and sodium dichloroisocyanurate as hospital disinfectants. J Hosp Infect. 1985. 6:20-30. 69. Lensing HH, Oei HL. A study of the efficacy of disinfectants against anthrax spores. Tijdschr Deirgeneeskd. 1984; 109: 557-63. 70. Naenni N, Thoma K, Zehnder M. Soft tissue dissolution capacity of currently used and potential endodontic irrigants. J Endod. 2004; 30: 785-7. 71. De-Deus G, Souza EM, Marins JR, Reis C, Paciornik S, Zehnder M. Smear layer dissolution by peracetic acid of low concentration. Intern Endod J. 2011; 44:485-90. 72. Dornelles-Morgental R, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, de Faria-Junior NB, Hungaro- Duarte MA, Kuga MC, Tanomaru-Filgo M. Antibacterial efficacy of endodontic irrigating solutions and their combinations in root canals contaminated with - 37 -
Enterococcus faecalis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011. In press. 73. Sundqvist G, Figdor D, Persson S, Sjogren U. Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative re-treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1998; 85:86-93. 74. Molander A, Reit C, Dahlen G, Kvist T. Microbiological status of root filled teeth with apical periodontitis. Intern Endod J. 1998; 31:1-7. 75. Rocas I, Siqueira JF, Santos KRN. Association of Enterococcus faecalis with different forms of periradicular diseases. J Endod. 2004; 30:315-20. 76. Thomas VC, Thurlow LR, Boyle D, Hancock LE. Regulation of autolysisdependent extracellular DNA release by Enterococcus faecalis extracellular proteases influences biofilm development. J Bacteriology. 2008; 190: 5690-98. 77. Miles AA, Misra SS, Irwin JO. The estimation of the bactericidal power of the blood. J. Hyg. 1938; 38:732-49. 78. Retamozo B, Shabahang S, Johnson N, Aprecio RM, Torabinejad M. Minimum contact time and concentration of sodium hypochlorite required to eliminate Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod. 2010; 36: 520-523. 79. Vianna ME, Gomes BPFA. Efficacy of sodium hypochlorite combined with chlorhexidine against Enterococcus faecalis in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 107: 585-589. 80. Abdullah M, Ng YL, Gulabivala K, Moles DR, Spratt DA. Susceptibilities of two Enterococcus faecalis phenotypes to root canal medications. J Endod. 2004; 31:30-36. 81. Gomes BPFA, Ferraz CCR, Vianna ME, Berber VB, Teixeira FB, Souza-Filho FJ. In vitro antimicrobial activity of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate in the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis. Intern Endod J. 2001; 34: 424-428. 82. Shabahang S, Torabinejad M. Effect of MTAD on Enterococcus faecaliscontaminated root canals of extracted human teeth. J Endod. 2003; 29: 576-579. 83. Metzger Z, Better H, Abramovitz I. Immediate root canal disinfection with ultraviolet light: an ex vivo feasibility study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 104: 425-33. - 38 -
84. Kho P, Baumgartner JC. A comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of NaOCl/Biopure MTAD versus NaOCl/EDTA against Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod. 2006; 32: 652-55. 85. Berber VB, Gomes BPFA, Sena NT, Vianna ME, Ferraz CCR, Zaia AA, Souza- Filho FJ. Efficacy of various concentrations of NaOCl and instrumentation techniques in reducing Enterococcus faecalis within root canals and dentinal tubules. Intern Endod J. 2006: 39: 10-17. 86. Haapasalo HK, Siren EK, Waltimo TMT, Orstavik D, Haapasalo MPP. Inactivation of local root canal medicaments by dentine: an in vitro study. Intern Endod J. 2000; 33: 126-131. - 39 -
Appendix Table 3: Raw Data Collection Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 0.01 1 Control 409600 Rep1 26 10649600 0.01 1 Control 409600 Rep2 28 11468800 0.01 1 Control 409600 Rep3 21 8601600 0.01 1 Control 409600 Rep4 25 10240000 0.01 1 Control 409600 Rep5 32 13107200 0.01 1 Control 409600 Rep6 26 10649600 0.01 1 NaOCl 1min 102400 Rep1 53 5427200 0.01 1 NaOCl 1min 102400 Rep2 50 5120000 0.01 1 NaOCl 1min 102400 Rep3 41 4198400 0.01 1 NaOCl 1min 102400 Rep4 60 6144000 0.01 1 NaOCl 1min 102400 Rep5 54 5529600 0.01 1 NaOCl 1min 102400 Rep6 57 5836800 0.01 1 NaOCl 3min 6400 Rep1 54 345600 0.01 1 NaOCl 3min 6400 Rep2 44 281600 0.01 1 NaOCl 3min 6400 Rep3 49 313600 0.01 1 NaOCl 3min 6400 Rep4 50 320000 0.01 1 NaOCl 3min 6400 Rep5 44 281600 0.01 1 NaOCl 3min 6400 Rep6 43 275200 0.01 1 NaOCl 5min 1600 Rep1 85 136000 0.01 1 NaOCl 5min 1600 Rep2 67 107200 0.01 1 NaOCl 5min 1600 Rep3 70 112000 0.01 1 NaOCl 5min 1600 Rep4 75 120000 0.01 1 NaOCl 5min 1600 Rep5 64 102400 0.01 1 NaOCl 5min 1600 Rep6 71 113600 0.01 1 Stpx 1min 1638400 Rep1 24 39321600 0.01 1 Stpx 1min 1638400 Rep2 21 34406400 0.01 1 Stpx 1min 1638400 Rep3 27 44236800 0.01 1 Stpx 1min 1638400 Rep4 16 26214400 0.01 1 Stpx 1min 1638400 Rep5 23 37683200 0.01 1 Stpx 1min 1638400 Rep6 9 14745600 0.01 1 Stpx 3min 1638400 Rep1 17 27852800 0.01 1 Stpx 3min 1638400 Rep2 18 29491200 0.01 1 Stpx 3min 1638400 Rep3 16 26214400 0.01 1 Stpx 3min 1638400 Rep4 11 18022400 0.01 1 Stpx 3min 1638400 Rep5 13 21299200-40 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 0.01 1 Stpx 3min 1638400 Rep6 15 24576000 0.01 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep1 45 18432000 0.01 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep2 39 15974400 0.01 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep3 48 19660800 0.01 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep4 43 17612800 0.01 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep5 46 18841600 0.01 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep6 44 18022400 0.01 1 NaOCL+Neut 409600 Rep1 49 20070400 0.01 1 NaOCL+Neut 409600 Rep2 57 23347200 0.01 1 NaOCL+Neut 409600 Rep3 55 22528000 0.01 1 Stpx+Neut 409600 Rep1 64 26214400 0.01 1 Stpx+Neut 409600 Rep2 70 28672000 0.01 1 Stpx+Neut 409600 Rep3 63 25804800 0.01 1 neutral Stpx 409600 Rep1 57 23347200 0.01 1 neutral Stpx 409600 Rep2 68 27852800 0.01 1 neutral Stpx 409600 Rep3 72 29491200 0.01 1 neut NaOCl 409600 Rep1 40 16384000 0.01 1 neut NaOCl 409600 Rep2 64 26214400 0.01 1 neut NaOCl 409600 Rep3 56 22937600 0.01 2 Control 409600 Rep1 53 21708800 0.01 2 Control 409600 Rep2 32 13107200 0.01 2 Control 409600 Rep3 54 22118400 0.01 2 Control 409600 Rep4 40 16384000 0.01 2 Control 409600 Rep5 58 23756800 0.01 2 Control 409600 Rep6 44 18022400 0.01 2 NaOCl 1min 1638400 Rep1 15 24576000 0.01 2 NaOCl 1min 1638400 Rep2 20 32768000 0.01 2 NaOCl 1min 1638400 Rep3 16 26214400 0.01 2 NaOCl 1min 1638400 Rep4 11 18022400 0.01 2 NaOCl 1min 1638400 Rep5 20 32768000 0.01 2 NaOCl 1min 1638400 Rep6 23 37683200 0.01 2 NaOCl 3min 102400 Rep1 15 1536000 0.01 2 NaOCl 3min 102400 Rep2 15 1536000 0.01 2 NaOCl 3min 102400 Rep3 10 1024000 0.01 2 NaOCl 3min 102400 Rep4 16 1638400 0.01 2 NaOCl 3min 102400 Rep5 16 1638400 0.01 2 NaOCl 3min 102400 Rep6 14 1433600 0.01 2 NaOCl 5min 25600 Rep1 11 281600 0.01 2 NaOCl 5min 25600 Rep2 18 460800 0.01 2 NaOCl 5min 25600 Rep3 20 512000 0.01 2 NaOCl 5min 25600 Rep4 18 460800 0.01 2 NaOCl 5min 25600 Rep5 22 563200 0.01 2 NaOCl 5min 25600 Rep6 15 384000 0.01 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep1 32 13107200 0.01 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep2 44 18022400-41 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 0.01 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep3 46 18841600 0.01 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep4 28 11468800 0.01 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep5 42 17203200 0.01 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep6 41 16793600 0.01 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep1 67 27443200 0.01 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep2 59 24166400 0.01 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep3 63 25804800 0.01 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep4 65 26624000 0.01 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep5 65 26624000 0.01 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep6 66 27033600 0.01 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep1 61 24985600 0.01 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep2 72 29491200 0.01 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep3 59 24166400 0.01 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep4 62 25395200 0.01 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep5 56 22937600 0.01 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep6 59 24166400 0.01 3 Control 409600 Rep1 53 21708800 0.01 3 Control 409600 Rep2 32 13107200 0.01 3 Control 409600 Rep3 54 22118400 0.01 3 Control 409600 Rep4 40 16384000 0.01 3 Control 409600 Rep5 58 23756800 0.01 3 Control 409600 Rep6 44 18022400 0.01 3 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep1 37 15155200 0.01 3 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep2 34 13926400 0.01 3 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep3 27 11059200 0.01 3 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep4 36 14745600 0.01 3 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep5 36 14745600 0.01 3 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep6 34 13926400 0.01 3 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep1 22 9011200 0.01 3 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep2 23 9420800 0.01 3 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep3 29 11878400 0.01 3 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep4 28 11468800 0.01 3 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep5 26 10649600 0.01 3 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep6 24 9830400 0.01 3 NaOCl 5min 102400 Rep1 85 8704000 0.01 3 NaOCl 5min 102400 Rep2 89 9113600 0.01 3 NaOCl 5min 102400 Rep3 96 9830400 0.01 3 NaOCl 5min 102400 Rep4 93 9523200 0.01 3 NaOCl 5min 102400 Rep5 84 8601600 0.01 3 NaOCl 5min 102400 Rep6 82 8396800 0.01 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep1 52 21299200 0.01 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep2 60 24576000 0.01 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep3 56 22937600 0.01 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep4 77 31539200 0.01 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep5 64 26214400-42 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 0.01 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep6 60 24576000 0.01 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep1 66 27033600 0.01 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep2 66 27033600 0.01 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep3 63 25804800 0.01 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep4 68 27852800 0.01 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep5 55 22528000 0.01 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep6 58 23756800 0.01 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep1 61 24985600 0.01 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep2 80 32768000 0.01 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep3 73 29900800 0.01 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep4 71 29081600 0.01 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep5 58 23756800 0.01 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep6 67 27443200 0.1 0 Control 409600 Rep1 40 16384000 0.1 0 Control 409600 Rep2 38 15564800 0.1 0 Control 409600 Rep3 40 16384000 0.1 0 Control 409600 Rep4 38 15564800 0.1 0 Control 409600 Rep5 42 17203200 0.1 0 Control 409600 Rep6 40 16384000 0.1 1 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep1 34 13926400 0.1 1 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep2 34 13926400 0.1 1 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep3 36 14745600 0.1 1 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep4 36 14745600 0.1 1 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep5 36 14745600 0.1 1 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep6 35 14336000 0.1 1 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep1 32 13107200 0.1 1 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep2 36 14745600 0.1 1 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep3 32 13107200 0.1 1 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep4 33 13516800 0.1 1 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep5 32 13107200 0.1 1 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep6 31 12697600 0.1 1 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep1 36 14745600 0.1 1 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep2 30 12288000 0.1 1 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep3 36 14745600 0.1 1 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep4 34 13926400 0.1 1 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep5 36 14745600 0.1 1 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep6 33 13516800 0.1 2 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep1 40 16384000 0.1 2 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep2 40 16384000 0.1 2 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep3 40 16384000 0.1 2 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep4 40 16384000 0.1 2 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep5 40 16384000 0.1 2 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep6 38 15564800 0.1 2 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep1 38 15564800 0.1 2 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep2 36 14745600-43 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 0.1 2 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep3 36 14745600 0.1 2 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep4 30 12288000 0.1 2 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep5 33 13516800 0.1 2 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep6 34 13926400 0.1 2 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep1 24 9830400 0.1 2 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep2 24 9830400 0.1 2 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep3 26 10649600 0.1 2 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep4 34 13926400 0.1 2 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep5 27 11059200 0.1 2 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep6 24 9830400 0.1 3 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep1 40 16384000 0.1 3 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep2 39 15974400 0.1 3 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep3 38 15564800 0.1 3 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep4 39 15974400 0.1 3 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep5 40 16384000 0.1 3 NaOCl 1min 409600 Rep6 38 15564800 0.1 3 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep1 40 16384000 0.1 3 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep2 40 16384000 0.1 3 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep3 38 15564800 0.1 3 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep4 38 15564800 0.1 3 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep5 39 15974400 0.1 3 NaOCl 3min 409600 Rep6 39 15974400 0.1 3 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep1 35 14336000 0.1 3 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep2 30 12288000 0.1 3 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep3 35 14336000 0.1 3 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep4 36 14745600 0.1 3 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep5 36 14745600 0.1 3 NaOCl 5min 409600 Rep6 36 14745600 0.1 1 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep1 40 16384000 0.1 1 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep2 40 16384000 0.1 1 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep3 35 14336000 0.1 1 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep4 41 16793600 0.1 1 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep5 40 16384000 0.1 1 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep6 40 16384000 0.1 1 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep1 35 14336000 0.1 1 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep2 36 14745600 0.1 1 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep3 40 16384000 0.1 1 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep4 40 16384000 0.1 1 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep5 40 16384000 0.1 1 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep6 35 14336000 0.1 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep1 36 14745600 0.1 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep2 37 15155200 0.1 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep3 33 13516800 0.1 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep4 39 15974400 0.1 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep5 36 14745600-44 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 0.1 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep6 37 15155200 0.1 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep1 39 15974400 0.1 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep2 39 15974400 0.1 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep3 38 15564800 0.1 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep4 40 16384000 0.1 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep5 38 15564800 0.1 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep6 40 16384000 0.1 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep1 38 15564800 0.1 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep2 39 15974400 0.1 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep3 38 15564800 0.1 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep4 38 15564800 0.1 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep5 40 16384000 0.1 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep6 40 16384000 0.1 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep1 40 16384000 0.1 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep2 40 16384000 0.1 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep3 40 16384000 0.1 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep4 39 15974400 0.1 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep5 36 14745600 0.1 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep6 39 15974400 0.1 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep1 39 15974400 0.1 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep2 39 15974400 0.1 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep3 40 16384000 0.1 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep4 40 16384000 0.1 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep5 40 16384000 0.1 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep6 40 16384000 0.1 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep1 40 16384000 0.1 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep2 40 16384000 0.1 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep3 39 15974400 0.1 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep4 38 15564800 0.1 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep5 40 16384000 0.1 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep6 40 16384000 0.1 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep1 40 16384000 0.1 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep2 40 16384000 0.1 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep3 40 16384000 0.1 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep4 40 16384000 0.1 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep5 39 15974400 0.1 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep6 39 15974400 1 0 Control 409600 Rep1 45 18432000 1 0 Control 409600 Rep2 38 15564800 1 0 Control 409600 Rep3 38 15564800 1 0 Control 409600 Rep4 41 16793600 1 0 Control 409600 Rep5 40 16384000 1 0 Control 409600 Rep6 40 16384000 1 1 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep1 23 588800 1 1 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep2 20 512000-45 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 1 1 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep3 20 512000 1 1 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep4 18 460800 1 1 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep5 23 588800 1 1 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep6 21 537600 1 1 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep1 28 44800 1 1 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep2 32 51200 1 1 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep3 31 49600 1 1 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep4 29 46400 1 1 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep5 34 54400 1 1 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep6 33 52800 1 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep1 43 4300 1 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep2 43 4300 1 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep3 31 3100 1 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep4 39 3900 1 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep5 35 3500 1 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep6 36 3600 1 2 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep1 38 972800 1 2 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep2 40 1024000 1 2 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep3 39 998400 1 2 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep4 38 972800 1 2 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep5 38 972800 1 2 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep6 40 1024000 1 2 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep1 34 54400 1 2 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep2 41 65600 1 2 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep3 39 62400 1 2 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep4 43 68800 1 2 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep5 40 64000 1 2 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep6 40 64000 1 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep1 59 5900 1 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep2 60 6000 1 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep3 61 6100 1 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep4 61 6100 1 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep5 58 5800 1 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep6 55 5500 1 3 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep1 37 947200 1 3 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep2 38 972800 1 3 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep3 39 998400 1 3 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep4 40 1024000 1 3 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep5 39 998400 1 3 NaOCl 1min 25600 Rep6 38 972800 1 3 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep1 47 75200 1 3 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep2 39 62400 1 3 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep3 45 72000 1 3 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep4 46 73600 1 3 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep5 40 64000-46 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 1 3 NaOCl 3min 1600 Rep6 41 65600 1 3 NaOCl 5min 400 Rep1 30 12000 1 3 NaOCl 5min 400 Rep2 39 15600 1 3 NaOCl 5min 400 Rep3 34 13600 1 3 NaOCl 5min 400 Rep4 30 12000 1 3 NaOCl 5min 400 Rep5 30 12000 1 3 NaOCl 5min 400 Rep6 31 12400 1 1 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep1 46 18841600 1 1 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep2 34 13926400 1 1 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep3 43 17612800 1 1 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep4 45 18432000 1 1 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep5 36 14745600 1 1 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep6 39 15974400 1 1 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep1 35 14336000 1 1 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep2 43 17612800 1 1 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep3 43 17612800 1 1 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep4 36 14745600 1 1 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep5 39 15974400 1 1 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep6 41 16793600 1 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep1 40 16384000 1 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep2 37 15155200 1 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep3 41 16793600 1 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep4 43 17612800 1 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep5 42 17203200 1 1 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep6 39 15974400 1 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep1 42 17203200 1 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep2 40 16384000 1 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep3 40 16384000 1 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep4 39 15974400 1 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep5 38 15564800 1 2 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep6 43 17612800 1 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep1 42 17203200 1 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep2 42 17203200 1 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep3 41 16793600 1 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep4 40 16384000 1 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep5 38 15564800 1 2 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep6 40 16384000 1 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep1 35 14336000 1 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep2 43 17612800 1 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep3 45 18432000 1 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep4 36 14745600 1 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep5 44 18022400 1 2 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep6 39 15974400 1 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep1 39 15974400 1 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep2 34 13926400-47 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 1 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep3 40 16384000 1 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep4 40 16384000 1 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep5 35 14336000 1 3 Stpx 1min 409600 Rep6 35 14336000 1 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep1 42 17203200 1 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep2 35 14336000 1 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep3 37 15155200 1 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep4 34 13926400 1 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep5 40 16384000 1 3 Stpx 3min 409600 Rep6 36 14745600 1 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep1 40 16384000 1 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep2 40 16384000 1 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep3 40 16384000 1 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep4 40 16384000 1 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep5 41 16793600 1 3 Stpx 5min 409600 Rep6 40 16384000 10 0 Control 409600 Rep1 43 17612800 10 0 Control 409600 Rep2 40 16384000 10 0 Control 409600 Rep3 36 14745600 10 0 Control 409600 Rep4 36 14745600 10 0 Control 409600 Rep5 39 15974400 10 0 Control 409600 Rep6 44 18022400 10 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 10 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 10 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 10 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50 10 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 10 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep1 0 <50 10 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 10 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep5 0 <50 10 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 10 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50-48 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 10 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50 10 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep3 0 <50 10 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep1 0 <50 10 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep6 0 <50 10 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep4 0 <50 10 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep3 0 <50 10 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep1 0 <50 10 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 10 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep1 0 <50 10 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 10 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep5 0 <50 10 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 10 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50-49 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 10 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep4 0 <50 10 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep2 0 <50 10 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep6 0 <50 10 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep4 0 <50 10 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep3 0 <50 10 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep1 0 <50 10 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep6 0 <50 10 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep4 0 <50 10 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep3 0 <50 10 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 10 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 0 Control 409600 Rep1 36 14745600 25 0 Control 409600 Rep2 46 18841600 25 0 Control 409600 Rep3 46 18841600 25 0 Control 409600 Rep4 42 17203200 25 0 Control 409600 Rep5 46 18841600-50 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 25 0 Control 409600 Rep6 42 17203200 25 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 25 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 25 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 25 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 25 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 25 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50 25 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 25 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 25 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep1 0 <50 25 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 25 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 25 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep5 0 <50 25 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 25 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50 25 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep1 0 <50 25 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 25 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep5 0 <50 25 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 25 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50-51 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 25 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep1 0 <50 25 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 25 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep5 0 <50 25 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 25 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50 25 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep1 0 <50 25 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 25 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep5 0 <50 25 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 25 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50 25 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep1 0 <50 25 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 25 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep5 0 <50-52 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 25 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 25 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50 25 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep1 0 <50 25 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 25 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep5 0 <50 25 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 0 Control 409600 Rep1 40 16384000 50 0 Control 409600 Rep2 36 14745600 50 0 Control 409600 Rep3 38 15564800 50 0 Control 409600 Rep4 44 18022400 50 0 Control 409600 Rep5 38 15564800 50 0 Control 409600 Rep6 42 17203200 50 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 50 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 50 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 50 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 50 1 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 50 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50 50 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 50 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 50 1 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep1 0 <50 50 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 50 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 50 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep5 0 <50 50 1 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 50 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50-53 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 50 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 50 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 50 2 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 50 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50 50 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 50 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 50 2 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep1 0 <50 50 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 50 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 50 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep5 0 <50 50 2 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 50 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50 50 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep1 0 <50 50 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 50 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep5 0 <50 50 3 NaOCl 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 50 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 50 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 50 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 50 1 Stpx 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 50 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50 50 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 50 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50-54 -
Conc% Trial Agent Dil ratio Rep Count CFU/ml 50 1 Stpx 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep1 0 <50 50 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 50 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 50 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep5 0 <50 50 1 Stpx 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 50 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50 50 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep1 0 <50 50 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 50 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep5 0 <50 50 2 Stpx 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep4 0 <50 50 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 1min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep1 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep2 0 <50 50 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep5 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 3min 100 Rep6 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep1 0 <50 50 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep2 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep3 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep4 0 < 50 50 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep5 0 <50 50 3 Stpx 5min 100 Rep6 0 < 50-55 -
Figure 6: Picture of E. faecalis/disinfectant Test Tubes - 56 -
Figure 7: Picture of Dilution Series - 57 -
Figure 8: Picture of CFU s on Agar Plates (Drop Plating) - 58 -