Photodynamic therapy in the Endodontics

Kaustubh Mantri^1*, Shweta Sedani¹ and Nilima Thosar²

^*Correspondence: Kaustubh Mantri, Department of Conservative and Endodontics, Sharad Pawar Dental College & Hospital, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed to be University) Sawangi (Meghe), Wardha, India, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

The light-induced inactivation of microorganisms or molecules and cells is known as photodynamic therapy [1]. Various terminology is there for photodynamic therapy such as antimicrobial chemotherapy, antimicrobial photodynamic therapy, and photodynamic disinfection. Photodynamic inactivation is the process in which there is pathogenic microorganisms cells were killed. Lethal sensitization, light-activated disinfection, and photo-activated disinfection are the process seen in dentistry [2]. The principle of photodynamic therapy is that light activates the photosensitizer that targets the site with minimum photo-effects to the surrounding tissue and dye which is a photosensitizer that absorbs the energy from the light that transfers the energy into another molecule, another sensitizer used in the dental clinics is toluidine blue O, phenothiazine salt, and methylene blue, having wavelength uptake 595-665 nm.

Photodynamic therapy has high promising alternatives against viruses, bacteria, fungi for the treatment of microbial infection. The development of resistance to photodynamic therapy is improbable, in singlet oxygen, free radicals, and microbial cells that communicate with various metabolic pathways and cell structures. Break down of biofilm can inhibit the exchange of plasmids involving antibiotic resistance and interfere with colonization transfer [3]. Photodynamic therapy is used in the treatment of disinfection of the root canal.

It has three components: oxygen, photosensitizer, and light.

Photodynamic therapy “mechanism of action”

“Photodynamic therapy” has two stages initially the compound is applied and retained by target tissue it is then activated by visible light in a certain wavelength which causes the excitation of the photosensitizer.

Irradiation of the photosensitizer undergoes from low energy level to high energy level. There are two mechanisms by which the substance like oxygen and the sensitizer drug have the third state goes through the “chemical reaction” with the “type 1” reaction forms the free radicals by the electron transfers after the production of highly reactive oxygen molecules which attack the cellular target “type II” is high reactive oxygen is released, that is called as single oxygen due to this two type of reduction is seen and destruction of the cell takes place [4].

These studies that take place in the laboratory have a considerable impact on the system in which the two components that produce no effect on the system on tissue and bacteria the in vitro study asses give therapeutic safe photodynamic therapy that does not affect the host cell and inactive cell.

Light Sources and Photosensitizer

Many regular and manufactured photoactive mixtures have “photosensitizing potential”. Notwithstanding, to kill microorganisms, the most concentrated photosensitizer has a place with the gatherings halogenated xanthenes, phenothiazine’s, acridines, formed chlorines. Various elements are attractive for an optimal “photosensitizer”: nonappearance of poisonousness and harmful sideeffects, absence of mutagenic impact, particular gathering on the objective tissue, appropriateness for effective organization, minimal expense, high ingestion coefficient of the light, a trio condition of proper energy to take into account effective energy move to ground-state oxygen, the higher quantum yield of the state and long state lifetimes and high chances [5]. The job of photodynamic therapy in endodontic treatment has been tried utilizing various mixes of photosensitizer and light sources and has shown disparate outcomes. In any event, when a similar photosensitizer and light source were utilized, the variety of illumination conventions and variety of photosensitizer fixation, light time, and light power between contemplates troublesome. The significant gatherings of “photosensitizer” utilized in photodynamic therapy subordinate 621–651 nm, phenothiazine’s 621–701 nm, cyanine 601–804 nm, phytotherapy specialists 551–701 nm, and phthalocyanines 661–701 nm and chlorines [6]. The most considered and utilized colors in photodynamic therapy are the phenothiazine’s methylene blue and Toluidine blue O in a few focuses Curcumin, the significant constituent of turmeric powder that has been utilized for quite a long time in medication, as food shade a, and as a zest, has likewise been utilized as of late in dentistry as a photosensitizer for photodynamic therapy [7].

Studies have shown that for methylene blue, the frequency of greatest ingestion is 660 nm while for toluidine blue O is 630 nm. Methylene blue and toluidine blue O has comparable bactericidal impacts and are equipped for inactivating both Gram-positive and Gramnegative microorganisms, for instance. The decision of photosensitizers utilized in dentistry is additionally subject to the light source utilized. The necessity for photodynamic therapy has photosensitizers typically the longest wavelength and creates sufficient light strength at this frequency. At present, light wellsprings of a particular frequency, somewhere in the range of 634 and 806 nanometers, for the most part, applied in photodynamic therapy are helium-neon lasers 638 nm, gallium–aluminum–arsenide diode lasers 620–677 nm, and argon lasers 485–524 nm [8].

Three fundamental classes of clinical photodynamic therapy light sources: laser, light-radiating diodes, and incandescent lights. Among them, diode lasers, which are not difficult to deal with, less expensive, more versatile, have turned into the favored light source in photodynamic therapy. The laser light utilized in photodynamic therapy has a few benefits, to be specific, it tends to be guided through a fiber optic to convey the appropriate measure of light, monochromaticity high productivity, high intensity, and interstitial light-conveyance gadgets; in any case, they do have a significant expense. Non-lasers sources, for example, Driven have been utilized as of late in photodynamic therapy especially for the light of effectively available tissue surfaces. Separated incandescent lights enjoy the benefit that they can be frightfully sifted to coordinate with any photosensitizer; notwithstanding, they can't be proficiently coupled into optical fiber packs or fluid light aides, causing warming. With broadband sources, their compelling yield intensity is decreased.

According to the perspective of microscopic organisms and photosensitizer collaboration, the adequacy of photodynamic therapy is generally identified with three principle angles: (I) photosensitizer capacity of cooperating with the bacterial layer; (ii) photosensitizer capacity of infiltration and activity inside the cell; and (iii) responsive singlet oxygen arrangement around the bacterial cell by the enlightenment of the photosensitizer. The obstruction of Gram-negative microbes against effective killing by antibacterial photodynamic therapy is because of the diverse external film designs of Gram-negative microscopic organisms to the hydrophobic and charge impacts of photosensitizers. Indeed, the photosensitivity of microorganisms seems, by all accounts, to be identified with the charge of the sensitizer. The cationic photosensitizers, like methylene blue and toluidine blue O, are fit for inactivating both Gram-positive and Gram-negative microorganisms [9].

As a general rule, Gram-negative species are essentially impervious to some normally utilized photosensitizer in photodynamic therapy, while compelling photodynamic therapy result was acquired against Gram-positive species, which are more vulnerable, on a permeable layer of peptidoglycan and corrosive external the cytoplasmic film of Gram-positive species permits the photosensitizer to diffuse into touchy destinations. Other than the limit of the photosensitizer to attach the bacterial films and enter microbes, there are reports of inactivation of microorganisms, in which the photosensitizer doesn't need to infiltrate or even to experience the cells to be viable. As indicated by certain creators, if adequate amounts of singlet oxygen can be produced close to the external film of the microbes, it will want harm for crucial designs. Hence, if the photosensitizer can't associate with the objective microscopic organisms, yet the receptive results of treatment are created close to the cell, its practicality will rely upon the distance to the microorganisms. Accordingly, coming to the most blocked-off intracanal region ought to be additionally significant because achievement might be accomplished even without direct contact between the photosensitizer and the microbes. Regardless, notwithstanding all the above contemplations, the fundamental Photodynamic therapy is viewed as a kind II instrument, using singlet oxygen as a responsive species that harms [10].

Pre-Irradiation Time

The time required for the delivery of photosensitizer in photo activation and root canal treatment is not as preirradiation time. The irradiation time of light and energy amount is required for killing the microbes by using photodynamic therapy 220Mw at 635nmat 60 sec.

Applications in Endodontics

Photodynamic therapy has a good impact on the endodontics plication to correct root canal treatment and replacing the chemo-mechanical process and photodynamic therapy has an impact on canals cleaning and periapical lesions treatment. Nowadays photodynamic therapy is used in root canal treatment to minimize the bacterial load in vitro, in vivo, and in ex vivo. Photodynamic therapy helps in the disinfection of the canals that contain harmful substances.

Antimicrobial Therapy

In vivo

In vivo results announced endodontic microorganisms (counting E.faecalis) to altogether decrease following root channel treatment with aide photodynamic therapy contrasted with regular treatment alone. Nonetheless, questionable outcomes have likewise been accounted for. Four ex vivo considers revealed customary root waterway treatment regimens (like mechanical debridement and abundant NaOCl water system) to be altogether more successful in disposing of intracanal microbes contrasted with photodynamic therapy. Two examinations revealed that photodynamic therapy didn't have a huge extra impact on chemo-mechanical arrangement utilizing 4% NaOCl that decrease E.faecalis counts. A clarification in such a manner might be the presence of low grouping of accessible oxygen in the channels, especially in inconsistencies and in dentinal tubules. Under such conditions, the arrangement of cytotoxic oxygen subordinates might be either be hindered or limited. In clinical situations, the photosensitizer might not be able to diffuse well into sporadic waterways and dentinal tubules or even through conceivable bacterial biofilms enduring on immaculate channel dividers. Components might think twice about the result of photodynamic therapy in tainted root trenches [11].

Further investigations likewise preferred the utilization of photodynamic therapy for the end of biofilms and lingering and medication-safe microorganisms Studies inferred that photodynamic therapy application improves sanitized chemo mechanical debridement. They introduced promising side effects from the application of supplemental photodynamic therapy. During root trench treatment and that adult, biofilms were difficult. Garcez et al. utilized photodynamic therapy in a mix with traditional. At the point when they assessed their convention in teeth with necrotic pulps going through starting root waterway treatment, they tracked down that a fundamentally more prominent decrease in the bacterial count happened after the extra utilization of photodynamic therapy. If they took into consideration week after week. Purhajibagher and Bahador distributed the first in vivo focus on the effects of photo activated disinfection in the treatment of essential “endodontic” contaminations. This review uncovered a critical microorganism variety of tainted “root” waterway of photodynamic therapy concerning toluidine blue O.

In vitro

One of the principal aetiological agents is “Enterococcus faecalis, a Gram-positive facultative anaerobic coccoid”. Components that assume a part in tenacious contaminations & “post-treatment endodontic” sickness. New photodynamic therapy against E.faecalis gave an immediate examination of these investigations, affirming.

Others have stated that its use in vitro has revealed a good antibacterial potential. Indeed, it was inferred that photodynamic therapy was compelling in diminishing the quantities of E.faecalis settlements contaminated “root canal” removed “human teeth” contrasted with conventional endodontic instrumentation/water system treatment conventions. The adequacy of photodynamic therapy on Porphyromonas gingivalis or E.faecalis biofilm has been shown utilizing indocyanine green as the photosensitizer. A few investigations detailed that photodynamic therapy at high portions uncovered antimetabolic and antibiofilm likely movement against.

Clinical Procedure

Photodynamic therapy depends on a “photosensitizer”. “Photosensitizer” joins at films assimilates of microorganisms and hooks itself to their surface, energy from light, and then transmits this energy to oxygen, which is then converted to extremely sensitive oxygen species like “oxygen” particles. Oxygen species responds unequivocally and annihilate the microorganisms in a flash and successfully. Photodynamic therapy guideline isn't just viable against microscopic organisms, yet additionally against different microorganisms including infections, growths, and protozoa. The applied photosensitizer has undeniably less liking to mammalian cells; in this manner, no bad incidental treatment effect has been accounted for by “toxicological tests”. Clinically, after finishing planning, the “canal” is an immunized “photosensitizer” arrangement, that remains in situ for a decent timeframe of 60 sec. This has been exhibited for a lab to death high groupings of microscopic organisms, for the most part, found in “root canal”. Care should be taken to guarantee the most extreme wetting, as it is significant that the arrangement contacts the microscopic organisms, in any case, the photosensitization interaction won't happen. It has been accounted for that the photodynamic therapy method was fruitful in wiping out every one of the cultivable microbes when the “photosensitizer” arrived at the microorganisms. Moreover, it featured the requirement for alert in the utilization of the producer to guarantee that it isn't bowed too firmly or caught in the “canal”. Kosarieh et al. revealed that a 2-min water system with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid works on the entrance of photosensitizer into dentinal tubules, so it very well may be expected photosensitizer arrive at microbes limited more profound pieces of the “root canal” divider. The photodynamic therapy standard gives off an impression of being viable against microscopic organisms, yet additionally against biofilms. Progressed noninvasive photodynamic therapy utilizing a photosensitizer detailing containing oxygen transporter habited set the “biofilm” framework and to work with complete “inactivation” and sanitization of developed “endodontic biofilm”. Displayed in research center investigations that photodynamic therapy can be viable the utilization of an intracanal fiber, implying that light conveyance may not radically influence its antimicrobial activity. Moreover, revealed that the infiltration profundity of the fiber was not a huge factor since they discovered comparable qualities when utilizing photodynamic therapy prior and then afterward instrumentation.

Advantages [12]

No requirement for sedation.

Can target precisely or exactly in limited locales.

Mending is without or little scarring.

Work on personal satisfaction and protracted endurance.

No harm to subordinate tissue.

More limited treatment tissue.

Less or no requirement for fold raise.

Protection from treatment doesn't create with rehashed treatment.

Have moderate incidental effects.

Non – intrusive strategy.

Dis-Advantages [13]

Photosensitizer is a thick substance that impregnates the dentine surface altogether.

The deadly activity of photodynamic therapy depends on photochemical occasions and not warm impacts, instead of numerous laser treatment methods.

The expected cytotoxicity of photodynamic therapy. In vitro and ex vivo studies have been played out that is intended to examine the wellbeing profile of photodynamic therapy for potential in vivo applications.

Dentine, dentine lattice, mash tissue, bacterial lipopolysaccharides, and cow-like serum egg whites were found to fundamentally diminish photodynamic therapy antimicrobial viability.

Conclusion

Regardless of mechanical and logical advances in endodontics, there are many cases that outcome in disappointment because of microbial variables. One test that has propelled numerous specialists as of late is to foster innovations to kill out these constant microorganisms. Photodynamic therapy is an insignificantly intrusive methodology that has been exhibited to be subordinate to regular “root canal” treatment in killing microorganisms that stay suitable in the “root canal”. Similar research and analyses have been performed regarding dental implants by the prestigious institution – Datta Meghe Institute Of Medical Sciences Sawangi (Meghe)[14-16] Wardha, Maharashtra, India Even though there is restricted data and in some cases clashing information relating to the utilization of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in “root canal” treatment, preclinical information recommends therapy choice is a promising adjunctive enhancement after customary chemo-mechanical debridement, additional decrease, diligent microbes. Further, in vivo, clinical preliminaries are important to make more dependable ends concerning the utilization of photodynamic therapy in endodontics and to decide the fitting boundaries for the photosensitizer focus, plan of various photosensitizer definitions, energy measurement utilized, and the light ideal time [17].

References

1. Gursoy H, Ozcakir-Tomruk C, Tanalp J, et al. Photodynamic therapy in dentistry: A literature review. Clin Oral Investig 2013; 17:1113-1125.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

2. Plaetzer K, Krammer B, Berlanda J, et al. Photophysics and photochemistry of photodynamic therapy: Fundamental aspects. Lasers Med Sci 2009; 24:259-268.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

3. Konopka KR, Goslinski TO. Photodynamic therapy in dentistry. J Dent Res 2007; 86:694-707.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

4. Burns T, Wilson M, Pearson GJ. Sensitisation of cariogenic bacteria to killing by light from a helium-neon laser. J Med Microbiol 1993; 38:401-405.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

5. Bonsor SJ, Nichol R, Reid TM, et al. An alternative regimen for root canal disinfection. Br Dent J 2006; 201:101-105.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

6. Calzavara‐Pinton P, Rossi MT, Sala R, et al. Photodynamic antifungal chemotherapy. Photochem Photobiol 2012; 88:512-522.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

7. Dobson J, Wilson M. Sensitization of oral bacteria in biofilms to killing by light from a low-power laser. Arch Oral Biol 1992; 37:883-887.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

8. Fonseca MB, Júnior PO, Pallota RC, et al. Photodynamic therapy for root canals infected with Enterococcus faecalis. Photomed Laser Surg 2008; 26:209-213.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

9. Garcez AS, Nuñez SC, Hamblin MR, et al. Antimicrobial effects of photodynamic therapy on patients with necrotic pulps and periapical lesion. J Endod 2008; 34:138-142.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

10. Jerjes W, Upile T, Betz CS, et al. The application of photodynamic therapy in the head and neck. Dent update 2007; 34:478-486.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

11. Carvalho ED, Mello I, Albergaria SJ, et al. Effect of chemical substances in removing methylene blue after photodynamic therapy in root canal treatment. Photomed Laser Surg 2011; 29:559-563.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

12. Neugebauer J. Using photodynamic therapy to treat peri-implantitis. Interview. Dent Implantol Update 2005; 16:9-16.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

13. Siqueira Jr JF. Aetiology of root canal treatment failure: Why well‐treated teeth can fail. Int Endod J 2001; 34:1-10.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

14. Anuradha RS. Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of Nisin and Triple Antibiotic Medicament as Intracanal Medicaments against Enterococcus Faecalis: An In Vitro study.

Google Scholar

15. Khatod S, Ikhar A, Nikhade P, et al. Management of calcified root canal: A case report. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol 2020; 14:6705-6708.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

16. Varma M, Sedani S, Nikhade P. Comparative Evaluation of 5th-and 7th-Generation Bonding Agents: An In vitro Study. J Datta Meghe Inst Med Sci 2019; 14:166.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

17. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants.    J Endod 2006; 32:389-398.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref