Articles Vol. 67 No. 6 25/06/2026

ANTIBACTERIAL EFFECTIVENESS OF QMIX ROOT CANAL IRRIGANT AGAINST ENTEROCOCCUS FAECALIS: A SCOPING REVIEW

Nguyen Thanh Binh1,2, Trinh Thi Thanh Mai1,2, Ta Anh Phuong3,4, Nguyen Mai Huong5,6, Nguyen Thi Thuong7,8, Khuat Minh Loc9,10, Trinh Hoang Hiẹp11,12, Nguyen Qui Huy1,2, Lam Thi Bich Ngoc1,2
1 Hanoi Medical University
2 Trường Đại học Y Hà Nội
3 Van Mieu-Quoc Tu Giam ward Medical Station
4 Trạm Y tế phường Văn Miếu-Quốc Tử Giám
5 Hanoi University of Business and Technology
6 Trường Đại học Kinh Doanh và Công nghệ Hà Nội
7 Ho Chi Minh city Center for Disease Control
8 Trung tâm Kiểm soát bệnh tật thành phố Hồ Chí Minh
9 Ba Dinh ward Medical Station
10 Trạm Y tế phường Ba Đình
11 University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vietnam National University, Hanoi
12 Trường Đại học Y Dược, Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội
DOI: 10.52163/yhc.v67i6.5512
22 Views
0 Downloads
Keywords
QMix, Enterococcus faecalis, root canal irrigant, endodontics.
Abstract

Objective: To synthesize existing evidence on the antibacterial effectiveness of the QMix root canal irrigant against Enterococcus faecalis.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, using a systematic search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases. In vitro studies evaluating the antibacterial activity of QMix against E.faecalis and including comparisons with other root canal irrigants were included in the analysis.

Results: After screening, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. QMix demonstrated significant antibacterial activity against E.faecalis. When compared with sodium hypochlorite, its effectiveness was inconsistent and influenced by irrigant concentration, volume, and contact time. QMix showed comparable efficacy to chlorhexidine and superior antibacterial activity compared with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid under most experimental conditions.

Conclusion: QMix exhibits favorable antibacterial activity against E.faecalis and may serve as a promising adjunctive irrigant in endodontic treatment.

References
[1]
Benjamin S.H.L et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of QMix on Enterococcus faecalis infected root canals: a systematic review of in vitro studies. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 2020, 45 (2): e23. doi: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e23. Google Scholar
[2]
Gomes B.P.F.A et al. Irrigants and irrigation activation systems in Endodontics. Brazilian Dental Journal, 2023, 34 (4): 1-33. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440202305577. Google Scholar
[3]
Alghamdi F et al. The Influence of Enterococcus faecalis as a dental root canal pathogen on endodontic treatment: a systematic review. Cureus, 2020, 12 (3): e7257. doi: 10.7759/cureus.7257. Google Scholar
[4]
Siqueira Jr J.F et al. Optimising single-visit disinfection with supplementary approaches: a quest for predictability. Australian Endodontic Journal, 2011, 37 (3): 92-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4477.2011.00334.x. Google Scholar
[5]
Jose J et al. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial activity of QMix, 2.5% sodium hypochlorite, 2% chlorhexidine, guava leaf extract and aloevera extract against Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans - An in-vitro Study. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 2016, 10 (5): ZC20-3. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17705.7747. Google Scholar
[6]
Stojicic S et al. Antibacterial and smear layer removal ability of a novel irrigant, QMix. International Endodontic Journal, 2012, 45 (4): 363-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01985.x. Google Scholar
[7]
Kumar P et al. An in-vitro analysis to evaluate the disinfection effectiveness of cold atmospheric pressure (CAP) plasma jet in Enterococcus faecalis infected root canals. Biomater Investig Dent, 2023, 10 (1): 2193214. doi: 10.1080/26415275.2023.2193214. Google Scholar
[8]
Cecchin D et al. Evaluation of antimicrobial effectiveness and dentine mechanical properties after use of chemical and natural auxiliary irrigants. Journal of Dentistry, 2015, 43 (6): 695-702. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.03.013. Google Scholar
[9]
Balić M et al. The efficacy of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming and sonic-activated irrigation combined with QMix solution or sodium hypochlorite against intracanal E.faecalis biofilm. Lasers in Medical Science, 2016, 31 (2): 335-42. doi: 10.1007/s10103-015-1864-9. Google Scholar
[10]
Radcliffe C.E et al. Antimicrobial activity of varying concentrations of sodium hypochlorite on the endodontic microorganisms Actinomyces israelii, A.naeslundii, Candida albicans and Enterococcus faecalis. International Endodontic Journal, 2004, 37 (7): 438-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00752.x. Google Scholar
[11]
Verma N et al. Effect of different concentrations of sodium hypochlorite on outcome of primary root canal treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Endodontics, 2019, 45 (4): 357-363. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.01.003. Google Scholar
[12]
Rosenthal S et al. Chlorhexidine substantivity in root canal dentin. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics, 2004, 98 (4): 488-92. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2003.07.005. Google Scholar
[13]
Baca P et al. Residual and antimicrobial activity of final irrigation protocols on Enterococcus faecalis biofilm in dentin. Journal of Endodontics, 2011, 37 (3): 363-6. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.11.036. Google Scholar
[14]
Zhang R et al. Antibacterial and residual antimicrobial activities against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm: a comparison between EDTA, chlorhexidine, cetrimide, MTAD and QMix. Scientific Reports, 2015, 5: 12944. doi: 10.1038/srep12944. Google Scholar
[15]
Ferrer-Luque C.M et al. Antimicrobial activity of maleic acid and combinations of cetrimide with chelating agents against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm. Journal of Endodontics, 2010, 36 (10): 1673-5. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.06.009. Google Scholar