Materials and methods: Root canal exudates of 30 patients were tested against MTA Fillapex (Angelus), Metapex (BioMed), zinc oxide eugenol (Deepak Enterprise), Endomethasone (Septodont), Endoflas FS (Sanlor Laboratories), MTA (Angelus) (positive control), and glycerine (negative control). Children with failed endodontic cases were included in the study. Tube dilution and agar diffusion methods were used to check the antifungal efficacy of the root canal sealers. In tube dilution method, 24-well culture plates containing freshly mixed material along with Candida albicans were used. Wells containing MTA (Angelus) along with Sabouraud dextrose agar and Candida albicans served as positive control while glycerine along with Sabouraud dextrose agar and Candida albicans served as negative control. All plates were incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. Growth of the fungi was monitored after 24 hours by the presence of the turbidity. The samples were recultured to test the experimental material using agar well diffusion method, and the Petri plates were incubated for 24 hours and 72 hours. Zone of inhibition was measured after respective time period. Paired t test was used for the data analysis.
Results: It was seen in tube dilution method Endomethasone showed least turbidity while maximum was shown by Metapex; similar results were seen in case of agar well diffusion method in which largest zone of inhibition was shown by Endomethasone while smallest was by Metapex.
Conclusion: It was concluded that Endomethasone showed maximum efficacy against Candida albicans as compared to Metapex.
How to cite this article: Singh S, Srivastava B, Gupta K, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Antifungal Efficacy of Five Root Canal Sealers against Clinical Isolates of Candida albicans: A Microbiological Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2020;13(2):119-123.
METHODS: A double-blind, parallel-group randomised controlled trial was carried out. The intervention group received oral care with chlorhexidine 0.2%, while the control group received routine oral care with thymol. Nurses provided oral care with assigned solutions of 20 mL once daily over seven days. Oral cavity assessment using the Brief Oral Health Status Examination form was performed before each oral care procedure. Data on medication received and the subsequent development of aspiration pneumonia was recorded. An oral swab was performed on Day 7 to obtain specimens to test for colonisation.
RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 35 (control) and 43 (intervention) patients. Chlorhexidine was effective in reducing oral colonisation compared to routine oral care with thymol (p < 0.001). The risk of oral bacterial colonisation was nearly three times higher in the thymol group compared to the chlorhexidine group.
CONCLUSION: The use of chlorhexidine 0.2% significantly reduced oral colonisation and is recommended as an easier and more cost-effective alternative for oral hygiene.