<i>In vitro</i> antibacterial action of Tetraclean, MTAD and five experimental irrigation solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the antibacterial effect of Tetraclean, MTAD and five experimental irrigants using both direct exposure test with planktonic cultures and mixed-species in vitro biofilm model. METHODOLOGY: Tetraclean, MTAD and five experimental solutions that were modifications of existing formulae including MTAD + 0.01% cetrimide (CTR), MTAD + 0.1% CTR, MTAC-1 (Tween 80 replaced by 0.01% CTR in MTAD), MTAC-2 (Tween 80 replaced by 0.1% CTR) and MTAD-D (MTAD without the Tween 80 and no CTR added) were used as disinfectants in the experiments. In the direct exposure test, a suspension of Enterococcus faecalis was mixed with each of the solutions. After 0.5, 1, 3 and 10 min, an inactivator was added and the number of surviving bacteria was calculated. A mixed-species biofilm from subgingival plaque bacteria was grown in brain heart infusion broth in anaerobic conditions on synthetic hydroxyapatite discs. Two-week-old biofilms were exposed to the solutions for 0.5, 1 and 3 min. The samples were observed by confocal laser scanning microscopy after bacterial viability staining. The scans were quantitatively analysed, and the volume of killed cells of all cells was calculated for each medicament. RESULTS: Tetraclean and MTAC-2 (0.1% CTR) killed planktonic E. faecalis in <30 s. Complete killing of bacteria required 1 min by MTAC-1, 3 min by MTAD + 0.1% CTR and 10 min by MTAD, MTAD-D and MTAD + 0.01% CTR. In the biofilm test, there were significant differences in microbial killing between the different solutions and times of exposure (P < 0.005). MTAC-2 showed the best performance, killing 71% of the biofilm bacteria in 3 min, followed by MTAC-1 and Tetraclean. MTAD and the three MTAD modifications demonstrated the lowest antibacterial activity. CONCLUSION: Tetraclean was more effective than MTAD against E. faecalis in planktonic culture and in mixed-species in vitro biofilm. CTR improved the antimicrobial properties of the solutions, whereas Tween 80 seemed to have a neutral or negative impact on their antimicrobial effectiveness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".