Issues‎ > ‎Vol 7, issue 1‎ > ‎


Assessment of Antibacterial Activity of Five Endodontic Sealing Materials Against Enterococcus Faecalis

Dara H. Saeed*

*Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.

Submitted: 25/12/2019; Accepted: 02/02/2020; Published 01/06/2020



Objective: Residual and recurrence infection can be prevented by a root canal sealer that possesses good antibacterial activity, which contributes to the success of endodontic therapy. This in-vitro study conducted to evaluate the antibacterial activity of five endodontic sealers (MTA fillapex, HS Mxima MTA, Endosequence BC sealer, BioRoot RCS, and AH plus) against Enterococcus faecalis using agar diffusion test.          

Methods: Freshly mixed sealers were placed into prepared wells on agar plates. The diameter of the inhibition zone was measured after incubation for 24 hours. The data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and LSD at a 0.05 significance.

Results: All tested samples had an antimicrobial effect against Enterococcus faecalis after 24 hours. MTA fillapex had the greatest antimicrobial effect with an inhibition diameter of 12.77mm, followed by Endosequence BC. Finally, the weakest antimicrobial effect was related to the BioRoot RCS sealer with a mean zone of inhibition of 10.26mm.

Conclusions: The root canal sealers showed different antimicrobial activity. However, MTA fillapex was the most effective sealer against the organism tested.


Keywords: Root canal sealers, Antibacterial activity, Enterococcus faecalis.                                                                                                                                                                                             Full Article - PDF                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   


1. Beyth N, Kesler Shvero D, Zaltsman N, Houri- Haddad Y, Abramovitz I, Davidi MP, Weiss EI. Rapid kill-novel endodontic sealer and Enterococcus faecalis. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e78586.
2. Prado M, Simao RA, Gomes BP. A microleakage study of gutta-percha/AH plus and resilon/real self-etch systems after different irrigation protocols. J Appl Oral Sci. 2014;22(3):174-9.
3. Marin-Bauza GA, Silva-Sousa YT, da Cunha SA, Rached-Junior FJ, Bonetti-Filho I, Sousa-Neto MD, Miranda CE. Physicochemical properties of endodontic sealers of different bases. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012;20(4):455-61.
4. Bodrumlu E, Semiz M. Antibacterial activity of a new endodontic sealer against Enterococcus faecalis. J Can Dent Assoc. 2006;72(7):637a-737c.
5. Abdulkader A, Duguid R, Saunders EM. The antimicrobial activity of endodontic sealers to anaerobic bacteria. Int Endod J. 1996;29(4):280-3.
6. Haapasalo M, Endal U, Zandi H, Coil JM. Eradication of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation solutions. Endod Top. 2005;10(1):77-102.
7. Mouth N, Satoh T, Watabe H, Tani-Ishi N. Evaluation of the biocompatibility of resin-based root canal sealers in rat periapical tissue. Dent Mater J. 2013;32(3):413-9.
8. Tyagi S, Mishra P, Tyagi P. Evolution of root canal sealers: An insight story. Eur J Gen Den. 2013;2(3):199-218.
9. Sedgley C, Nagel A, Dahlen G, Reit C, Molander A. Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction and culture analyses of Enterococcus faecalis in root canals. J Endod. 2006;32(3):173-7.
10. Siqueira JF, Jr, Rocas IN. Polymerase chain reaction-based analysis of microorganisms associated with failed endodontic treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004;97(1):85-94.
11. Zoletti GO, Siqueira JF Jr, Santos KR. Identification of Enterococcus faecalis in root- filled teeth with or without periradicular lesions by culture-dependent and-independent approaches. J Endod. 2006;32(8):722-6.
12. Editorial Board of the Journal of Endodontics, “Wanted: a base of evidence”. J Endod. 2007;33(12)1401-2.
13. Salles LP, Gomes-Cornélio AL, Guimaraes FC, Herrera BS, Bao SN, Rossa-Junior C, et al. Mineral trioxide aggregate–based endodontic sealer stimulates hydroxyapatite nucleation in human osteoblast-like cell culture. J Endod. 2012;38(7):971-6.
14. Baek S-H, Plenk H, Kim S. Periapical tissue responses and cementum regeneration with amalgam, SuperEBA, and MTA as root-end filling materials. J Endod. 2005;31(6):444-9.
15. Jafari F, Kafil HS, Jafari S, Aghazadeh M, Momeni T. Antibacterial activity of MTA Fillapex and AH 26 root canal sealers at different time intervals. Iran Endo J. 2016;11(3):192-7.
16. Miletić I, Prpić-Mehičić G, Maršan T, Tambić- Andrašević A, Pleško S, Karlović Z, et al. Bacterial and fungal microleakage of AH26 and AH Plus root canal sealers. Int Endod J. 2002;35(5):428-32.
17. Alanezi AZ, Jiang J, Safavi KE, Spangberg LS, Zhu Q. Cytotoxicity evaluation of endo- sequence root repair material. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010;109(3):122-5.
18. Damas BA, Wheater MA, Bringas JS, Hoen MM. Cytotoxicity comparison of mineral trioxide aggregates and EndoSequence bioceramic root repair materials. J Endod. 2011;37(3):372-5.
19. Zhang W, Li Z, Peng B. Assessment of a new root canal sealer’s apical sealing ability. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107(6):79-82.
20. Zhang W, Li Z, Peng B. Ex vivo cytotoxicity of a new calcium silicate-based canal filling material. Int Endod J. 2010;43(9):769-74.
21. Camps J, Jeanneau C, El Ayachi I, Laurent P. Bioactivity of a calcium silicate-based endodontic cement (BioRoot RCS): interactions with human periodontal ligament cells in vitro. J Endod. 2015;41(9):1469-73.
22. 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(7):1051-5.
23. Torabinejad M, Hong CU, Pitt Ford TR, Kettering JD. Antibacterial effects of some root end filling materials. J Endod. 1995;21(8):403-6.
24. Saleh IM, Ruyter IE, Haapasalo M, Ørstavik 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(3):193-8.
25. 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(1):30-5.
26. AlShwaimi E, Bogari D, Ajaj R, Al-Shahrani S, Almas K, Majeed A. In vitro antimicrobial effectiveness of root canal sealers against Enterococcus faecalis: A Systematic Review. J Endod. 2016;42(11):1588-97.
27. Eldeniz AU, Erdemir A, Hadimli HH, Belli S, Erganis O. Assessment of antibacterial activity of EndoREZ. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006;102(1):119-26.
28. Forbes B. SD WS. Diagnostic microbiology. 12th, editor: Mosby, 2007.
29. Richardson IG. The calcium silicate hydrates. Cement Concrete Res. 2008;38(2):137-58.
30. Lovato KF, Sedgley CM. Antibacterial activity of endosequence root repair material and proroot MTA against clinical isolates of Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod. 2011;37(11):1542-6.
31. 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(4):502-6.
32. Chotvorrarak K, Yanpiset K, Banomyong D, Srisatjaluk R. In vitro antibacterial activity of oligomer-based and calcium silicate-based root canal sealers. M Dent J. 2017;37(2):145-54.

Creative Commons License © The Authors, published by University of Sulaimani, College of Dentistry