n vitro antibacterial activity of oligomer-based and calcium silicate-based root canal sealers

Main Article Content

Kanet Chotvorrarak
Kallaya Yanpiset
Danuchit Banomyong
Ratchapin Laovanitch Srisatjaluk


Objective: To evaluate antibacterial effects of root canal sealers, oligomer-based (OB) and calcium silicate (BC)
in comparison to epoxy-resin (AH Plus) and zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE), against Enterococcus faecalis.
Materials and Methods: Antibacterial effects of the root canal sealers were evaluated by the modified direct
contact method using 96-well plates. Each sealer was filled on the bottom of wells at 1-mm thickness, 20 wells
of each sealer. The wells of each group was further divided into five subgroups depending on testing periods
after sealer setting, i.e.- 20 min, 24 h, 3, 7, and 14 days. Next, 200-µl aliquot of E. faecalis (5 x 105 CFU) was
placed in the well containing the set sealer and kept at 37°C for 24 h. The wells containing the bacterial
suspension (without any sealer) and sterile culture media were used as positive and negative controls. Survival
of bacteria were determined by 10-fold serial dilution in Brain-Heart Infusion (BHI) broth and cultured on BHI
agar. In addition, elution test was carried out by incubating the bacterial suspension to culture media that
exposed to the set sealers for 20 min, 24 h, and 3 days. Statistical analysis was conducted using Kruskal-Wallis
non-parametric test (α=.05).
Results: From the direct contact test, at 20 min and 24h, BC sealer and AH Plus showed strong bactericidal
effects while OB sealer did not display any antibacterial effect. At 3 days, antimicrobial effect of BC sealer was
significantly reduced while AH Plus did not show the antibacterial effect. At 7 and 14 days, all sealers did not
possess any antibacterial activity, except ZOE sealer that had exhibited the potent bactericidal effect until 14
days. For the elution test, eluted substances from the test sealers at all setting periods did not cause any
significant reduction of the bacteria.
Conclusion: The root canal sealers showed different antimicrobial activity against E. faecalis after setting. OB
sealer showed no antibacterial effects at all periods. ZOE sealer was the most effective sealer with antibacterial
activity until 14 days. Antimicrobial effects of AH Plus and BC sealers gradually decreased within 24 h and 3
days after setting, respectively.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Chotvorrarak K, Yanpiset K, Banomyong D, Laovanitch Srisatjaluk R. n vitro antibacterial activity of oligomer-based and calcium silicate-based root canal sealers. M Dent J [Internet]. 2020 Oct. 21 [cited 2023 Dec. 3];37(2):145-54. Available from: https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/mdentjournal/article/view/246836
Original articles


1. Zhang H, Shen Y, Ruse ND, Haapasalo M. Antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers by modified direct contact test against Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod 2009; 35: 1051-5.
2. Asgary S, Kamrani FA. Antibacterial effects of five different root canal sealing materials. J Oral Sci 2008; 50: 469-74.
3. Gomes BP, Pedroso JA, Jacinto RC, Vianna ME, Ferraz CC, Zaia AA, et al. In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of five root canal sealers. Braz Dent J 2004; 15: 30-5.
4. Grossman L. Antimicrobial effect of root canal cements. J Endod 1980; 6: 594-7.
5. al-Khatib ZZ, Baum RH, Morse DR, Yesilsoy C, Bhambhani S, Furst ML. The antimicrobial effect of various endodontic sealers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990; 70: 784-90.
6. Siqueira JF, Jr., Favieri A, Gahyva SM, Moraes SR, Lima KC, Lopes HP. Antimicrobial activity and flow rate of newer and established root canal sealers. J Endod 2000; 26: 274-7.
7. Sipert CR, Hussne RP, Nishiyama CK, Torres SA. In vitro antimicrobial activity of Fill Canal, Sealapex, Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, Portland cement and EndoRez. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 539-43.
8. Slutzky-Goldberg I, Slutzky H, Solomonov M, Moshonov J, Weiss EI, Matalon S. Antibacterial properties of four endodontic sealers. J Endod 2008; 34: 735-8.
9. Bodrumlu E, Semiz M. Antibacterial activity of a new endodontic sealer against Enterococcus faecalis. J Can Dent Assoc 2006; 72: 637.
10. Heling I, Chandler NP. The antimicrobial effect within dentinal tubules of four root canal sealers. J Endod 1996; 22: 257-9.
11. Cobankara FK, Altinoz HC, Ergani O, Kav K, Belli S. In vitro antibacterial activities of root-canal sealers by using two different methods. J Endod 2004; 30: 57-60.
12. Pupo J, Biral RR, Benatti O, Abe A, Valdrighi L. Antimicrobial effects of endodontic filling cements on microorganisms from root canal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1983; 55: 622-7.
13. Leonardo MR, da Silva LA, Tanomaru Filho M, Bonifacio KC, Ito IY. In vitro evaluation of antimicrobial activity of sealers and pastes used in endodontics. J Endod 2000; 26: 391-4.
14. Heil J, Reifferscheid G, Waldmann P, Leyhausen G, Geurtsen W. Genotoxicity of dental materials. Mutat Res 1996; 368: 181-94.
15. Board JOEE. Uses of calcium hydroxide: an online study guide. J Endod 2008; 34: e87-92.
16. Candeiro GT, Correia FC, Duarte MA, Ribeiro-Siqueira DC, Gavini G. Evaluation of radiopacity, pH, release of calcium ions, and flow of a bioceramic root canal sealer. J Endod 2012; 38: 842-5.
17. Hansen SW, Marshall JG, Sedgley CM. Comparison of intracanal EndoSequence Root Repair Material and ProRoot MTA to induce pH changes in simulated root resorption defects over 4 weeks in matched pairs of human teeth. J Endod 2011; 37: 502-6.
18. Lovato KF, Sedgley CM. Antibacterial activity of endosequence root repair material and proroot MTA against clinical isolates of Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod 2011; 37: 1542-6.
19. Amin S, Amin M. Thermoplastic Elastomeric (TPE) Materials and their use in outdoor electrical insulation. Rev Adv Mater Sci 2011; 29: 15-30.
20. Banomyong D, Ongchavalit L, Yanpiset K. Cytotoxicity evaluation of newly developed bi-functional, oligomer-based sealers and a methacrylate resin-based root canal sealer. M Dent J 2016; 36: 89-98.
21. Georgopoulou M, Kontakiotis E, Nakou M. In vitro evaluation of the effectiveness of calcium hydroxide and paramonochlorophenol on anaerobic bacteria from the root canal. Endod Dent Traumatol 1993; 9: 249-53.
22. Sagsen B, Er O, Esel D, Yagmur G, Altintop Y. In vitro pharmacodynamic activities of root canal sealers on Enterococcus faecalis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009; 10: 35-42.
23. Tobias RS. Antibacterial properties of dental restorative materials: a review. Int Endod J 1988; 21: 155-60.
24. Smadi L, Khraisat A, Al-Tarawneh SK, Mahafzah A, Salem A. In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of nine root canal sealers: direct contact test. Odontostomatol Trop 2008; 31: 11-8.
25. Siqueira JF, Gonçalves RB. Antibacterial activities of root canal sealers against selected anaerobic bacteria. J Endod 1996; 22: 79-80.
26. Saleh IM, Ruyter IE, Haapasalo M, Orstavik D. Survival of Enterococcus faecalis in infected dentinal tubules after root canal filling with different root canal sealers in vitro. Int Endod J 2004; 37: 193-8.
27. Kayaoglu G, Erten H, Alacam T, Orstavik D. Short-term antibacterial activity of root canal sealers towards Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 483-8.
28. Nawal RR, Parande M, Sehgal R, Naik A, Rao NR. A comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy and flow properties for Epiphany, Guttaflow and AH-Plus sealer. Int Endod J 2011; 44: 307-13.
29. Eldeniz AU, Hadimli HH, Ataoglu H, Orstavik D. Antibacterial effect of selected root-end filling materials. J Endod 2006; 32: 345-9.
30. Weiss EI, Shalhav M, Fuss Z. Assessment of antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers by a direct contact test. Endod Dent Traumatol 1996; 12: 179-84.
31. 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 Oral Radiol Endod 1998; 85: 86-93.
32. 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.
33. Akpata ES, Blechman H. Bacterial invasion of pulpal dentin wall in vitro. J Dent Res 1982; 61: 435-8.
34. Haapasalo M, Orstavik D. In vitro infection and disinfection of dentinal tubules. J Dent Res 1987; 66: 1375-9.
35. Orstavik D, Haapasalo M. Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and dressings of experimentally infected dentinal tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990; 6: 142-9.
36. Love RM. Enterococcus faecalis--a mechanism for its role in endodontic failure. Int Endod J 2001; 34: 399-405.
37. Pizzo G, Giammanco GM, Cumbo E, Nicolosi G, Gallina G. In vitro antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers. J Dent 2006; 34: 35-40.
38. Richardson IG. The calcium silicate hydrates. Cement and Concrete Research 2008; 38: 137-58.
39. Estrela C, Sydney GB, Bammann LL, Felippe Junior O. Mechanism of action of calcium and hydroxyl ions of calcium hydroxide on tissue and bacteria. Braz Dent J 1995; 6: 85-90.
40. Fuss Z, Weiss EI, Shalhav M. Antibacterial activity of calcium hydroxide-containing endodontic sealers on Enterococcus faecalis in vitro. Int Endod J 1997; 30: 397-402.
41. Hume WR. The pharmacologic and toxicological properties of zinc oxide-eugenol. J Am Dent Assoc 1986; 113: 789-91.
42. Shalhav M, Fuss Z, Weiss EI. In vitro antibacterial activity of a glass ionomer endodontic sealer. J Endod 1997; 23: 616-9.
43. Abdulkader A, Duguid R, Saunders EM. The antimicrobial activity of endodontic sealers to anaerobic bacteria. Int Endod J 1996; 29: 280-3.
44. Mickel AK, Wright ER. Growth inhibition of Streptococcus anginosus (milleri) by three calcium hydroxide sealers and one zinc oxide-eugenol sealer. J Endod 1999; 25: 34-7.