Date of Graduation


Document Type


Degree Type



School of Dentistry


Not Listed

Committee Chair

Elizabeth Kao

Committee Co-Chair

Bryan Weaver

Committee Member

Keith Hildebrand


Introduction: Root canal perforations caused by pathologic or iatrogenic means have been shown to cause serious complications leading to overall tooth loss. Bacterial infection of the affected site results in failure of the root canal as well as an inflammatory response leading to the destruction of supporting tissues. Although a multitude of endodontic repair materials have been tested over the past several decades, recent introduction of bioceramic materials have shown favorable outcomes to repairs. Bioceramics not only exhibit excellent biocompatibility, but also may possess antibacterial properties due to their strong alkaline pH. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the antibacterial properties of the following endodontic repair materials: grey ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, EndoSequence BC Root Repair Material Fast Set Putty and NeoMTA Plus against Enterococcus faecalis. Materials and Methods: A modified direct contact test was utilized to expose grey ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, EndoSequence BC Root Repair Material Fast Set Putty and NeoMTA Plus to a bacterial suspension of Enterococcus faecalis strain ATCC 29212. Each material (n =4 per time period) was exposed to the bacterial suspension 10 minutes after allocation to its designated well and antibacterial activity was measured at 1H, 12H, 24H and 48H. Negative controls (n =4 per time period) consisted of each material exposed to LB broth (growth media) while positive controls (n =4 per time period) were the bacterial suspension without any of the tested materials. Enumeration of viable bacteria was conducted using Invitrogen’s Bacteria Counting Kit in combination with flow cytometry analysis. A two-way ANOVA with repeated measures on time was conducted. Significance was set at P ≤ .05. Results: At 48H, mean viable bacteria count for ProRoot MTA (2.76125 ± .452167) x 106 /mL, Biodentine was (3.01050 ± .410705) x 106 /mL, BC Fast Set Putty was (2.90525 ± .372005) x 106 /mL, and NeoMTA was (2.96900 ± .294599) x 106 /mL were significantly lower than the positive controls (29.68550 ± 1.849175) x 106 /mL (P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences between the materials. Conclusion: Grey ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, BC Fast Set Putty, and NeoMTA Plus exhibited similar antimicrobial properties when subjected to a modified direct contact test against Enterococcus faecalis strain ATC 29212. Flow cytometry analysis can be used as an alternative method for assessment of viable bacteria load.