Bioactive Glass S53P4 versus Chlorhexidine Gluconate as Intracanal Medicament in Primary Teeth: An In-vivo Study Using Polymerase Chain Reaction Analysis
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 31, 2026
Systematic Approach to Identify Novel Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Molecules from Plants' Extracts and Fractions to Prevent Dental Caries
Published on: March 31, 2021
Ankit Goel1, Abhishek Sinha2, Rakshit Vijay Sinai Khandeparker3
1Senior Lecturer, Department of Community Dentistry, Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Research, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India.
Background:
Bacteria have long been recognized as the primary etiology for pulpal and periapical lesions, which necessitates the elimination of bacteria from the root canal system. In primary teeth, irrigation and debridement is the main protocol required to disinfect the canal. Biomechanical preparation cannot be vigorously done on the primary teeth due to anatomical barrier such as thin and flared roots. This calls for the use of an effective intracanal medication that will assist disinfection of root canal system. Aim of the study was to examine the in-vivo susceptibility of root canal bacteria to chlorhexidine (CHX) gluconate-1% gel and bioactive glass (BAG) S53P4 when used as intracanal medicaments using polymerase chain reaction (PCR).
Methodology:
PCR (analysis used oligonucleotide primers of Escherichia coli) was used to detect and compare the microbial load reduction after medication of 14 teeth for a week with either CHX gel - 1% or BAG S53P4. The pre and post microbial load was checked in the form of colony forming units. When analysis was done, a statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups.
Results:
The study revealed that both medicaments caused a considerable amount of microbial load reduction. BAG S53P4 caused much more reduction than CHX 1% gel. Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the two groups.
Conclusion:
BAG S53P4 has superior antibacterial property as compared to CHX 1% gel.
