Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 19–26 | Cite as

Clinical evaluation of sustained-release metronidazole gel versus metronidazole solution as an intracanal medicament in abscessed primary molars

  • M. B. BhangdiaEmail author
  • B. Nandlal
  • G. S. Vijaykumar
  • P. K. Kulkarni
  • R. Shanbhog
Original Scientific Article

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy of metronidazole gel versus metronidazole solution against Enterococcus faecalis in abscessed primary molars.

Study design

A clinical trial.

Method

Twenty pulpally involved non-vital carious human primary mandibular second molars with furcal abscess were randomly allocated into two groups to evaluate the efficacy of metronidazole gel (3 % w/v) and metronidazole solution (0.5 % w/v) against E. faecalis. Subjects in the first experimental group were subjected to treatment with metronidazole gel (3 % w/v) and subjects in the second experimental group were treated with metronidazole solution (0.5 % w/v). Two microbial samples (pre-operative and post-operative samples) were obtained from the root canals of each subject from both the groups; sub cultured and efficacy of both the groups were evaluated.

Results

Overall percentage reduction of the mean colony forming unit (CFU) count of metronidazole gel (3 % w/v) group was 96.39 % and metronidazole solution (0.5 % w/v) was 90.90 %. Results of intergroup t test of the percentage difference of mean CFU counts between both the groups revealed a statistically highly significant difference, i.e. p value—0.008 (p < 0.01).

Conclusions

Metronidazole gel (3 % w/v) was more effective than metronidazole solution (0.5 % w/v) against E. faecalis.

Keywords

Furcation Non-vital Metronidazole gel Metronidazole solution Enterococcus faecalis 

References

  1. Bystrom A, Sundqvist G. Bacterial evaluation of the efficacy of mechanical root canal instrumentation in endodontic therapy. Scand J Dent Res. 1981;89:321–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Gomes BPFA, Drucker DB, Lilley JD. Association of specific bacteria with some endodontic signs and symptoms. Int Endod J. 1994;27:143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gomes BPFA, Drucker DB, Lilley JD. Variations in the susceptibilities of components of the endodontic microflora to biomechanical procedures. Int Endod J. 1996;29:235–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gao J, Wang ZP, Li XG, Wang D, Zhang L. The preparation and in vitro release test of sustained release delivery gutta–percha containing metronidazole. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 2004;13:557–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Gjermo P. Chlorhexidine in dental practice. J Clin Periodontol. 1974;4:143–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kakehashi S, Stanley HR, Fitzgerald RJ. The effects of surgical exposures of dental pulps in germ- free and conventional rats. J South Calif Dent Assoc. 1966;34:449–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Krithikadatta J, Indira R, Dorothykalyani AL. Disinfection of dentinal tubules with 2% Chlorhexidine, 2% Metronidazole, Bioactive glass when compared with calcium hydroxide as intracanal medicaments. J Endod. 2007;33:1473–6.Google Scholar
  8. Lee Y, Han SH, Hong SH, et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of a polymeric chlorhexidine release device using in vitro model of Enterococcus faecalis dentinal tubule infection. J Endod. 2008;34:855–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Manzur A, Gonzalez AM, Pozos A, Herzog DS, Frierman S. Bacterial quantification in teeth with apical periodontitis related to instrumentation and different intracanal medications: a randomized clinical trial. J Endod. 2007;34:66–70.Google Scholar
  10. Oncag O, Gogulu D, Uzel A. Efficacy of various intracanal medicaments against Enterococcus faecalis in primary teeth: an in vivo study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2006;30(3):233–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Peters LB, Wesselink PR, Moorer WR. The fate and role of bacteria left in root dentinal tubules. Int Endod J. 1995;28:95–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Roche Y, Yoshimori RN. In vitro activity of spiramycin and metronidazole alone or in combination against clinical isolates from odontogenic abscesses. J Antimicrob Chemother. 1997;40:353–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Safavi KE, Spanberg SW, Langeland K. Root canal dentinal tubule disinfection. J Endod. 1990;16:207–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Siqueira JF, De Uzeda M, Fonseca ME. A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of in vitro dentinal tubules penetration by selected anaerobic bacteria. J Endod. 1996;22:308–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Siqueira JF Jr, Uzeda M. Intracanal medicaments : evaluation of the antibacterial effects of chlorhexidine, metronidazole, and calcium hydroxide associated with three vehicles. J Endod. 1997;23:167–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stuart CH, Schwart SA, Beeson TJ, Owatz CB. Enterococcus faecalis: its role in root canal treatment failure and current concepts in retreatment. J Endod. 2006;32:93–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Suresh Chandra B, Gopi Krishna V. Intracanal medicaments. In: Grossman’s endodontic practice, 12th edn. New Delhi: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 1991. p. 272.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. B. Bhangdia
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • B. Nandlal
    • 1
  • G. S. Vijaykumar
    • 2
  • P. K. Kulkarni
    • 3
  • R. Shanbhog
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pedodontics and Preventive DentistryJSS Dental College and Hospital, JSS UniversityMysoreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Microbiology, JSS Medical CollegeJSS UniversityMysoreIndia
  3. 3.Department of PharmaceuticsJSS College of Pharmacy, JSS UniversityMysoreIndia
  4. 4.NashikIndia

Personalised recommendations