Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33238961›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2020

Effectiveness of chitosan-propolis nanoparticle against Enterococcus faecalis biofilms in the root canal.

Abhishek Parolia, Haresh Kumar, Srinivasan Ramamurthy, Fabian Davamani, Allan Pau

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Antimicrobial efficacy of chitosan nanoparticles as intracanal medicament againstJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Strategies and mechanisms targetingFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Abhishek ParoliaDivision of Clinical Dentistry, School of Dentistry, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. paroliaabhi@gmail.com.
Haresh KumarDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Srinivasan RamamurthyCollege of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, University of Science and Technology of Fujairah, Fujairah, UAE.
Fabian DavamaniSchool of Health Sciences, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Allan PauDivision of Clinical Dentistry, School of Dentistry, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
International Medical University · MYUniversity of Science and Technology · YE

Funding

Exploratory Research Grants Scheme ERGS/1/2013/SKK11/IMU/03/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe successful outcome of endodontic treatment depends on controlling the intra-radicular microbial biofilm by effective instrumentation and disinfection using various irrigants and intracanal medicaments. Instrumentation alone cannot effectively debride the root canals specially due to the complex morphology of the root canal system. A number of antibiotics and surfactants are being widely used in the treatment of biofilms however, the current trend is towards identification of natural products in disinfection. The aim of the study was to determine the antibacterial effect of chitosan-propolis nanoparticle (CPN) as an intracanal medicament against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm in root canal.

methods240 extracted human teeth were sectioned to obtain 6 mm of the middle third of the root. The root canal was enlarged to an internal diameter of 0.9 mm. The specimens were inoculated with E. faecalis for 21 days. Following this, specimens were randomly divided into eight groups (n = 30) according to the intracanal medicament placed: group I: saline, group II: chitosan, group III: propolis100 µg/ml (P100), group IV: propolis 250 µg/ml (P250), group V: chitosan-propolis nanoparticle 100 µg/ml (CPN100), group VI: chitosan-propolis nanoparticle 250 µg/ml (CPN250), group VII: calcium hydroxide(CH) and group VIII: 2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel. Dentine shavings were collected at 200 and 400 μm depths, and total numbers of CFUs were determined at the end of day one, three and seven. The non-parametric Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare the differences in reduction of CFUs between all groups and probability values of p < 0.05 were set as the reference for statistically significant results. The scanning electron microscope (SEM) and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) were also performed after exposure to CPNs. The effectiveness of CPNs were also evaluated against E. faecalis isolated obtained from patients having failed root canal treatment.

resultsThe treatments of chitosan, P100, P250, CPN100, CPN250, CH and 2% CHX reduced the CFUs significantly compared to saline (p < .05). On day one and three, at 200 and 400-μm, CPN250 showed significant reduction of CFUs compared to all other groups (p < .05), while CPN100 was significantly better than other groups (p < .05) except CPN250 and 2% CHX. On day seven, at 200-μm CPN250 showed significant reduction of CFUs compared to all other groups (p < .05) except CPN100 and CHX, while at 400 μm CPN250 showed similar effectiveness as CPN100, CH and 2% CHX. SEM images showed root canal dentin treated with CPN250 had less coverage with E. faecalis bacteria similarly, CLSM images also showed higher percentage of dead E. faecalis bacteria with CPN250 than to CPN100.

conclusionCPN250 was the most effective in reducing E. faecalis colonies on day one, three at both depths and at day seven CPN250 was equally effective as CPN100 and 2% CHX.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalChitosanNanoparticlesPropolisBiofilmsCalcium HydroxideChlorhexidineDental Pulp CavityDentinEnterococcus faecalisHumansRoot Canal IrrigantsAnti-Infective Agents, LocalCalcium HydroxideChitosanChlorhexidinePropolisRoot Canal IrrigantsChitosan-propolis nanoparticleDentinal tubule disinfectionEnterococcus faecalisIntracanal medicaments

Identifiers

PMID33238961
PMCPMC7690148
OpenAlexW3106620767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.