World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  15 (2024)
Volume  14 (2023)
Volume  13 (2022)
Volume  12 (2021)
Volume  11 (2020)
Volume  10 (2019)
Volume  9 (2018)
Volume  8 (2017)
Volume  7 (2016)
Volume  6 (2015)
Volume  5 (2014)
Volume  4 (2013)
Volume  3 (2012)
Volume  2 (2011)
Volume  1 (2010)
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2023 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Comparison of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Octenidine Dihydrochloride and Chlorhexidine as Endodontic Irrigant: A Systematic Review

Manasi Mohan, Sapna C Muddappa, Ramanarayanan Venkitachalam, S VP Prabath, Rakesh R Rajan, R Kavitha

Keywords : Antimicrobial efficacy, Chlorhexidine, Enterococcus faecalis, Endodontic irrigants, Octenidine dihydrochloride

Citation Information : Mohan M, Muddappa SC, Venkitachalam R, Prabath SV, Rajan RR, Kavitha R. Comparison of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Octenidine Dihydrochloride and Chlorhexidine as Endodontic Irrigant: A Systematic Review. World J Dent 2023; 14 (4):373-381.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2227

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 02-06-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: This systematic review aims to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of octenidine dihydrochloride (OCT) and chlorhexidine (CHX) as endodontic irrigants when used against Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) and to compare the efficacy of both when used as a chemomechanical agent. Background: This systematic review literature search was undertaken in the databases Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) Ovid (from 1946), Scopus, and Google Scholar, as well as a hand search of the references of included publications. Ex vivo and in vitro, studies were included. The risk of bias was assessed using a customized tool. In vitro and ex vivo studies were done on a natural tooth and agar cultures to measure the colony forming unit (CFU), zone of inhibition (ZOI), minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), and proportion of dead cells to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of octenidine and CHX were considered outcomes in this review. Review results: From 152 articles, 25 were reviewed for full text. A total of 12 in vitro studies were included for qualitative analysis. Out of 12 studies, eight studies reported better antimicrobial efficacy for OCT than CHX; two studies showed comparable results, and two studies favored CHX. Conclusion: Octenidine was a more potent disinfectant in the root canal for better antimicrobial efficacy than CHX as an irrigant against E. faecalis. Clinical significance: Octenidine dihydrochloride (OCT) has been described as a potential substitute for CHX during chemomechanical debridement in endodontic treatment. OCT is less cytotoxic to the periapical tissues than CHX; however, as an antimicrobial, it is highly effective against a range of gram-positive and gram-negative oral bacterial species. The substance of CHX in dentin seems to be an advantage over OCT. Thus, different studies have been conducted to compare the effectiveness of OCT and CHX for disinfection of the root canal, and the evidence seems to support the clinical use of OCT more.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Haapasalo M, Orstavik D. In vitro infection and disinfection of dentinal tubules. J Dent Res 1987;66(8):1375–1379. DOI: 10.1177/00220345870660081801
  2. Vatkar NA, Hegde V, Sathe S. Vitality of Enterococcus faecalis inside dentinal tubules after five root canal disinfection methods. J Conserv Dent 2016;19(5):445– 449. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.190019
  3. Zorita-García M, Alonso-Ezpeleta LÓ, Cobo M, et al. Photodynamic therapy in endodontic root canal treatment significantly increases bacterial clearance, preventing apical periodontitis. Quintessence Int 2019;50(10):782–789. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a43249
  4. Xu J, He J, Shen Y, et al. Influence of endodontic procedure on the adherence of Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod. 2019;45(7):943–949. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.04.006
  5. Stuart CH, Schwartz SA, Beeson TJ, et al. Enterococcus faecalis: its role in root canal treatment failure and current concepts in retreatment. J Endod 2006;32(2):93–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.049
  6. Prada I, Micó-Muñoz P, Giner-Lluesma T, et al. Influence of microbiology on endodontic failure. Literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019;24(3):e364–e372. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.22907
  7. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod 2006;32(5):389–398. 10.1016/j.joen.2005.09.014
  8. Gomes BP, Vianna ME, Zaia AA, et al. Chlorhexidine in endodontics. Braz Dent J 2013;24(2):89–102. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201302188
  9. Gomes BP, Ferraz CC, Vianna ME, et al. In vitro antimicrobial activity of several concentrations of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate in the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J 2001;34(6):424–428. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00410.x
  10. Leonardo MR, Tanomaru Filho M, Silva LA, et al. In vivo antimicrobial activity of 2% chlorhexidine used as a root canal irrigating solution. J Endod 1999 Mar;25(3):167–171. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(99)80135-6
  11. Gonçalves LS, Rodrigues RCV, Andrade Junior CV, et al. The effect of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine as irrigant solutions for root canal disinfection: a systematic review of clinical trials. J Endod 2016;42(4):527–532. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.12.021
  12. Carrilho MRO, Geraldeli S, Tay F, et al. In vivo preservation of the hybrid layer by Chlorhexidine. J Dent Res 2007;86(6):529–533. DOI: 10.1177/154405910708600608
  13. Thaha KA, Varma RL, Nair MG, et al. Interaction between octenidine-based solution and sodium hypochlorite: a mass spectroscopy, proton nuclear magnetic resonance, and scanning electron microscopy–based observational study. J Endod 2017;43(1):135–140. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.09.015
  14. Decker EM, Weiger R, Wiech I, et al. Comparison of antiadhesive and antibacterial effects of antiseptics on Streptococcus sanguinis. Eur J Oral Sci 2003;111(2):144–148. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00025.x
  15. Tirali RE, Bodur H, Sipahi B, et al. Evaluation of the antimicrobial activities of chlorhexidine gluconate, sodium hypochlorite and octenidine hydrochloride in vitro. Aust Endod J 2013;39(1):15–18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4477.2010.00266.x
  16. Cherian B, Gehlot PM, Manjunath MK. Comparison of the antimicrobial efficacy of octenidine dihydrochloride and chlorhexidine with and without passive ultrasonic irrigation - an invitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(6):ZC71–ZC77. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17911.8021
  17. Tirali RE, Bodur H, Ece G. In vitro antimicrobial activity of sodium hypochlorite, chlorhexidine gluconate and octenidine dihydrochloride in elimination of microorganisms within dentinal tubules of primary and permanent teeth. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012;17(3):e517–e522. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.17566
  18. Alper K, Oktay EA, Kılıç A, et al. Evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of sodium hypochlorite, propolis, octenidine dihydrochloride and chlorhexidine on microorganisms. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2011;14(3): 183–190. DOI: 10.7126/cdj.2012.765
  19. AlShwaimi E, Bogari D, Ajaj R, et al. In vitro antimicrobial effectiveness of root canal sealers against Enterococcus faecalis: a systematic review. J Endod 2016;42(11):1588–1597. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.08.001
  20. de Lucena JM, Decker EM, Walter C, et al. Antimicrobial effectiveness of intracanal medicaments on Enterococcus faecalis: chlorhexidine versus octenidine. Int Endod J 2013;46(1):53–61. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02093.x
  21. Ari H. The role of irrigants in effective endodontic care. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2006;18(9):580–582.
  22. Tandjung L, Waltimo T, Hauser I, et al. Octenidine in root canal and dentine disinfection ex vivo. Int Endod J 2007;40(11):845–851. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01279.x
  23. Srivastava S. Antibiofilm efficacy of 0.1% octenidine, SmearOFF, 1% alexidine and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite against E. faecalis biofilm formed on tooth substrate. IAIM 2019;6(11): 1–8. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32736.92167
  24. Rosenthal S, Spångberg L, Safavi K. Chlorhexidine substantivity in root canal dentin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;98(4):488–492. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2003.07.005
  25. Sahinkesen G, Oktay EA, Er Ö, et al. Evaluation of residual antimicrobial effects and surface changes of gutta-percha disinfected with different solutions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12(1):47–51.
  26. Krishnan U, Saji S, Clarkson R, et al. Free active chlorine in sodium hypochlorite solutions admixed with octenidine, SmearOFF, chlorhexidine, and EDTA. J Endod 2017;43(8):1354–1359. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.03.034
  27. Regan JD, Fleury AA. Irrigants in non-surgical endodontic treatment. J Ir Dent Assoc 2006;52(2):84–92.
  28. Coaguila-Llerena H, Stefanini da Silva V, Tanomaru-Filho M, et al. Cleaning capacity of octenidine as root canal irrigant: a scanning electron microscopy study. Microsc Res Tech 2018;81(6):523–527. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.23007
  29. Tirali RE, Gulsahi K, Cehreli SB, et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of octenidine hydrochloride, MTAD and chlorhexidine gluconate mixed with calcium hydroxide. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(3):456–460. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1344
  30. Kanisavaran ZM. Chlorhexidine gluconate in endodontics: an update review. Int Dent J 2008;58(5):247–257. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2008.tb00196.x
  31. Mrużyńska M, Kanaffa-Kilijańska U. Irrigants used in endodontic treatment – review of the literature. Dental and Medical Problems 2015;52(4):491–498. DOI: 10.17219/dmp/59139
  32. Gulzar RA, Ajitha P, Subbaiyan H. Comparative evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of octenidine dihydrochloride with contemporary root canal disinfectants: a systematic review. J Pharmaceu Res Int 2020;32(17)64–76. DOI: 10.9734/jpri/2020/v32i1730669
  33. Jain A, Khetarpal A, Dahiya S. Comparitive evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of 0.1% octenidine dihydrochloride, 2% chlorhexidine and 2% chitosan against E. faecalis within the dentinal tubules. IJCE 2020;5(4):192–199. DOI: 10.18231/j.ijce.2020.047
  34. Palazzi F, Del Fabbro M, Taschieri S, et al. Comparison of antimicrobial substantivity of six root canal irrigants against Enterococcus faecalis. Iran Endod J 2018;13(4):446–452. DOI: 10.22037/iej.v13i4.21250
  35. Guneser MB, Akbulut MB, Eldeniz AU. Antibacterial effect of chlorhexidine-cetrimide combination, Salvia officinalis plant extract and octenidine in comparison with conventional endodontic irrigants. Dent Mater J 2016;35(5):736–741. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2015-159
  36. B Anuradha. Evaluation of antimicrobial effect of octenidine, triclosan and Chlorhexidine against E. Feacalis in root canal disinfection-An Ex vivo study [thesis]. [Tamil Nadu]: The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University; 2011.
  37. Ghivari SB, Bhattacharya H, Bhat KG, et al. Antimicrobial activity of root canal irrigants against biofilm forming pathogens- an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2017;20(3):147–151. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_38_16
  38. Thusha TS, Pratyusha P, John J, et al. Evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of 0.1% octenidine hydrochloride and 2% chlorhexidine gluconate against Enterococcus FaecalIs-an invitro study. Int J Sci Res 2020;9(9):29–30. DOI: 10.36106/ijs
  39. Goel A, Mishra N, Tikku A, et al. Comparative evaluation of the antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine, octenidine and sodium hypochlorite against E. fecalis: an in-vitro study. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2018;17(7):39–42. DOI: 10.9790/0853-1707143942
  40. Bukhary S, Balto H. Antibacterial efficacy of octenisept, alexidine, chlorhexidine, and sodium hypochlorite against Enterococcus faecalis biofilms. J Endod 2017;43(4):643–647. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.09.013
  41. Hancock HH, Sigurdsson A, Trope M, et al. Bacteria isolated after unsuccessful endodontic treatment in a North American population. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;91(5):579–86. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2001.113587
  42. Chivatxaranukul P, Dashper SG, Messer HH. Dentinal tubule invasion and adherence by Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J 2008;41(10): 873–882. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01445.x
  43. Love RM. The effect of tissue molecules on bacterial invasion of dentine. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2002;17(1):32–37. DOI: 10.1046/j.0902-0055.2001.00090.x
  44. Giardino L, Ambu E, Becce C, et al. Surface tension comparison of four common root canal irrigants and two new irrigants containing antibiotic. J Endod 2006;32(11):1091–1093. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.05.008
  45. Souza M, Cecchin D, Farina AP, et al. Evaluation of chlorhexidine substantivity on human dentin: a chemical analysis. J Endod 2012;38(9):1249–1252. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.06.003
  46. Ran S, Gu S, Wang J, et al. Dentin tubule invasion by Enterococcus faecalis under stress conditions ex vivo. Eur J Oral Sci 2015;123(5): 362–368. DOI: 10.1111/eos.12202
  47. Mohammadi Z, Abbott PV. The properties and applications of chlorhexidine in endodontics. Int Endod J 2009;42(4):288–302. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01540.x
  48. Basrani B, Santos JM, Tjäderhane L, et al. Substantive antimicrobial activity in chlorhexidine-treated human root dentin. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;94(2):240–245. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2002.124002
  49. Haapasalo M, Endal U, Zandi H, et al. Eradication of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation solutions. Endodontic Topics 2005;10(1):77–102. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00135.x
  50. Dunavant TR, Regan JD, Glickman GN, et al. Comparative evaluation of endodontic irrigants against Enterococcus faecalis biofilms. J Endod 2006;32(6):527–531. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2005.09.001
  51. Assadian O. Octenidine dihydrochloride: chemical characteristics and antimicrobial properties. J Wound Care 2016;25(3 Suppl):S3–S6. DOI: 10.12968/jowc.2016.25.Sup3.S3
  52. Coaguila-Llerena H, Rodrigues EM, Santos CS, et al. Effects of octenidine applied alone or mixed with sodium hypochlorite on eukaryotic cells. Int Endod J 2020;53(9):1264–1274. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13347
  53. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004;30(8):559–567. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000129039.59003.9d
  54. Baker NA, Eleazer PD, Averbach RE, et al. Scanning electron microscopic study of the efficacy of various irrigating solutions. J Endod. 1975;1(4):127–135. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(75)80097-5
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.