Comparison of Antibacterial Efficacy of Triple Antibiotic-Loaded Hydrogel Versus Modified Triple Antibiotic-Loaded Hydrogel as Intracanal Medicament Against Enterococcus faecalis: An In vitro Study

Objective: Triple antibiotic paste (TAP) is known to have an essential role in the success of endodontic treatment by eliminating pathogens from the root canal system. Unfortunately, it causes discolouration and cytotoxicity at high concentrations. The objective of this research was to assess and compare the antimicrobial effectiveness of various concentrations (1 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg) of TAP, TAP hydrogel (TAPH), M-TAP, and M-TAP hydrogel (MTAPH) against Enterococcus faecalis.
Methods: The agar well diffusion method was used to assess the antibiotic sensitivity of the following intracanal medicaments: TAP (ciprofloxacin, metronidazole, and minocycline) mixed in a ratio of 1: 1: 1; TAPH, M-TAP (ciprofloxacin, metronidazole, and amoxicillin), M-TAPH and plain hydrogel. Each tested medicament was individually evaluated for its antimicrobial activity against Enterococcus faecalis. Structural and topographical characterisation were analysed using a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and interpreted using ImageJ software. A microdilution broth test was performed to examine the minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) of M-TAP and TAP.
Results: Except for the plain hydrogel, M-TAP and hydrogel and TAP and hydrogel showed significantly varied inhibitory zones at different concentrations. M-TAPH showed the highest mean zone of inhibition of 21.6, 33.33 and 38.0 mm at a concentration of 1, 5, and 10 mg/mL when compared to TAPH, which showed a mean zone of inhibition of 3.3 mm,12.3 mm, 21.3 mm at the respective concentrations. The MIC study shows that more than 75% of Enterococcus faecalis growth was inhibited by M-TAP at a concentration of 5 μg/mL, whereas TAP showed inhibition at a concentration of 35 μg/mL. MBC results indicate that almost 99.9% of the bacterial population was killed at a concentration of 100 μg/mL (10–1) for TAP and 10 μg/mL (10–2) for M-TAP.
Conclusion: The antibacterial efficacy of M-TAP was significantly higher than TAP. Application of M-TAP at lower doses is advised to overcome the disadvantages seen with TAP. (EEJ-2023-07-088)