■比较三联抗生素糊剂(TAP)的疗效,草药提取物,和樟脑化一氯苯酚(CMCP)作为抗粪肠球菌的肛门内药物(E.粪便)在落叶磨牙中。
■从4-10岁儿童的第一和第二磨牙的运河中收集了总共60个样本,超过三分之二的根长,并符合纳入标准。在三个间隔收集样品-S1是在入口打开后收集的,在生物力学制备(BMP)和冲洗后收集S2,就在放置药物之前。将药物随机分为三组:I-CMCP组,II组-TAP,和第三组-草药组合。在从管道中取出药物后48小时取样品S3。收集的样品通过艾米培养基运送到实验室,它们在那里厌氧孵育24小时。观察到粪肠球菌的生长,人工计数菌落形成单位(CFU)。计算了所有样品中CFU的变化,并对结果进行统计学分析。
■结果表明,从S1(TAP=118.67±122.48,草药=109.07±106.43;CMCP=110.73±120.53)到S2(TAP=34.13±63.47;草药=27.67±39.39;CMCP=16.40±26.32)和S3(TAP=12.33±24.82;=4.73±CP.可以看出,使用重复测量方差分析(ANOVA)检验,在所有三组中从S1到S2存在显著差异(p≤0.05)。这表明,在暴露于根管细菌菌群48小时(2天)后,所有三种药物均有效地减少来自样品S1(前)至S3(后)的粪肠球菌的细菌计数。每组内CFU变化的成对比较,S1-S3也显示出显著的变化。对于所有三组,从S1到S2和S1到S3可见的CFU显着降低,但从S2到S3则没有。这是使用事后Bonferroni检验进行评估的。还观察到,在运河之间,尽管在CFU方面有从S1到S3的变化,进行管间比较时,细菌计数的减少没有显着差异。有,然而,当从S1到S3比较每个管道的值时,发现变化显着。
■三种药物均成功显示粪肠球菌数量减少,这项研究旨在检查。虽然效果在不同的群体之间不同,很温和,所以可以用草药替代抗生素和CMCP。此外,因为本地应用程序可以有效控制约会冲突,这些药物可以成功地给药,而不必开全身性抗生素。
■TawdeMM,LakadeL,PatilS,etal.三联抗生素糊剂草药组合和樟脑化一氯苯酚作为肛门内药物对乳牙粪肠球菌的抗菌功效的比较评估:体内研究。IntJClinPediatrDent2024;17(3):243-254。
UNASSIGNED: Compare the efficacy of triple antibiotic paste (TAP), herbal extracts, and camphorated monochlorophenol (CMCP) as intracanal medicaments against Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) in deciduous molars.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 60 samples were collected from canals of first and second molars of 4-10-year-old children, with more than two-thirds root length, and fitting the inclusion criteria. Samples were collected at three intervals-S1 was collected just after access opening, S2 was collected after biomechanical preparation (BMP) and irrigation, and just before placement of medicament. Randomization was done to place the medicaments into three groups: group I-CMCP, group II-TAP, and group III-herbal combination. Sample S3 was taken 48 hours after removal of medicament from the canals. The collected samples were transported via Amies media to the laboratory, where they were anaerobically incubated for 24 hours. Growth of E. Faecalis was observed, and manual counting of the colony-forming unit (CFU) was done. The change in CFU in all samples was calculated, and the results were statistically analyzed.
UNASSIGNED: The results show that there is a change from S1 (TAP = 118.67 ± 122.48, herbal = 109.07 ± 106.43; CMCP = 110.73 ± 120.53) to S2 (TAP = 34.13 ± 63.47; herbal = 27.67 ± 39.39; CMCP = 16.40 ± 26.32) and S3 (TAP = 12.33 ± 24.82; herbal = 4.73 ± 12.78; CMCP = 3.40 ± 7.12). It is seen that there is a significant difference seen from S1 to S2 in all three groups (p ≤ 0.05) using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. This shows that all three medicaments were effective in reducing bacterial counts of E. Faecalis from sample S1 (pre) to S3 (post) significantly after exposure to root canal bacterial flora for 48 hours (2 days). The pairwise comparison of the change in CFU within each group, S1-S3, also shows significant changes. There is a significant decrease in CFU seen from S1 to S2 and S1 to S3 but not from S2 to S3 for all three groups, which was evaluated using the post hoc Bonferroni test. It was also observed that in between the canals, although there was a change from S1 to S3 in terms of the CFU, there was no significant difference in the decrease in the bacterial count when intercanal comparison was made. There was, however, a change that was seen to be significant when values from each canal were compared from S1 to S3.
UNASSIGNED: All three medicaments have successfully shown a decrease in the numbers of E. faecalis, which the study aimed at checking. Although the effect varied intergroups, it was mild, so herbal alternatives could be used instead of antibiotics and CMCP. Also, because the local application is effective in controlling interappointment flare-ups, the medicaments can be successfully given without having to prescribe systemic antibiotics.
UNASSIGNED: Tawde MM, Lakade L, Patil S, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Triple Antibiotic Paste Herbal Combination and Camphorated Monochlorophenol as Intracanal Medicaments against Enterococcus faecalis in Deciduous Molars: An In Vivo Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(3):243-254.