Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Dentistry (Tehran, Iran) logoLink to Journal of Dentistry (Tehran, Iran)
. 2013 Jan 31;10(1):16–22.

Antibacterial Effect of Diclofenac Sodium on Enterococcus faecalis

Amin Salem-Milani 1,✉, Esrafil Balaei-Gajan 2, Saeed Rahimi 3, Zohreh Moosavi 4, Ardalan Abdollahi 5, Parvin Zakeri-Milani 6, Mehrdad Bolourian 7
PMCID: PMC3666061  PMID: 23724199

Abstract

Objective:

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have shown antibacterial activity in some recent studies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the antibacterial effect of diclofenac against Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) as a resistant endodontic bacterium in comparison with ibuprofen, calcium hydroxide and amoxicillin.

Materials and Methods:

The antibacterial activity of materials was evaluated using agar diffusion test and tube dilution method. Mixtures of 400 mg/ml of materials were prepared. The bacteria were seeded on 10 Muller-Hinton agar culture plates. Thirty microliter of each test material was placed in each well punched in agar plates. After incubation, the zone of bacterial inhibition was measured. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the test materials was determined by agar dilution method. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by Sidak post hoc test was used to compare the mean zone of microbial growth in the groups.

Results:

There were significant differences between the two groups (p< 0.05). Results of the agar diffusion test showed that antibiotics (amoxicillin, gentamycin) had the greatest antibacterial activity followed by NSAIDs (ibuprofen, diclofenac). Ca(OH)2 failed to show antibacterial activity. Diclofenac and ibuprofen showed distinct antibacterial activity against E. faecalis in 50 μg/ml and above concentrations.

Conclusion:

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it is concluded that diclofenac and ibuprofen have significantly more pronounced antibacterial activity against E. faecalis in comparison with Ca(OH)2.

Keywords: Amoxicillin, Anti-bacterial Agents, Calcium Hydroxide, Diclofenac, Ibuprofen

INTRODUCTION

Micro-organisms play a central role in the development of pulp and periapical diseases [1]. Therefore, local or systemic applications of various antibacterial agents have been used in the management of these pathoses. Calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) is commonly used as an effective intracanal agent [2]; however, some recent studies have questioned the ability of Ca(OH)2 in killing some resistant bacterial species in root canals [3, 4]. Therefore, many antibacterial agents have been proposed as a substitute for Ca(OH)2.

Antibiotics have also been used in the form of systemic or intracanal application. However, the extensive and irrational use of antibiotics has caused the problem of antibiotic resistance [5]. One solution for this problem is to search for non-antibiotic compounds that exert antibacterial activity through different mechanisms [5]. Recent studies have shown that some medicines have antibacterial activity in addition to their main function. They include some antihistamines, antipsychotics, tranquillizers, anti-hypertensives and even local anesthetics [6–8]. All of these drugs with moderate to powerful anti-microbial properties have been classified under the common term “non-antibiotics” [9]. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used medicines for the management of pain and inflammation in dentistry. Studies have demonstrated that some NSAIDs have antibacterial action [10, 11]. This property has been more extensively studied about diclofenac sodium in comparison with other NSAIDs.

Diclofenac sodium is a potent anti-inflammatory, analgesic and anti-pyretic agent with less gastrointestinal side effects [12]. Several studies have shown its efficacy in reducing post-operative complications following the removal of an impacted mandibular third molar [13–15]. Intracanal or systemic application of diclofenac sodium has also shown to reduce post-operative endodontic pain [16, 17]. Diclofenac has exhibited profound antibacterial effect against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria [5, 18–22]. It has also shown synergism with other antibiotics [21, 22]. These studies have suggested diclofenac as a potent non-antibiotic antibacterial agent. The question is whether diclofenac sodium is a suitable antibacterial agent in systemic or intracanal usage in endodontics with simultaneous anti-inflammatory and pain management effects. The antibacterial effect of diclofenac on endodontic pathogens has not been studied so far. Therefore, the present study was carried out to evaluate the antibacterial effect of diclofenac sodium against Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) as a resistant endodontic bacterium in comparison with common intracanal and systemic antibacterial agents.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, the antibacterial activity of diclofenac sodium (Shasun Ltd, India) was evaluated and compared with ibuprofen (St. Louis, MO, USA), calcium hydroxide (Ariadent, Tehran, Iran) and amoxicillin (Sigma-Aldrich, Disenhofen, Germany). Gentamicin (Sigma-Aldrich, Disenhofen, Germany) was also used as the positive control. The raw materials were obtained from Dana pharmaceutical company (Tabriz, Iran). One ml of distilled water was placed in a vial and 400 mg powder of the test materials were incrementally added while mixing with a spatula. In this way, mixtures of 400 mg/ml concentration of test materials were prepared.

E. faecalis (American type culture collection [ATCC] 29212) was obtained and maintained in brain-heart infusion (BHI) broth. The density of inoculum was adjusted to the turbidity of 0.5 McFarland (1.5 × 108 bacteria/ml). The antibacterial activity of materials was evaluated using agar diffusion test and tube dilution method.

Agar diffusion method

Ten Muller-Hinton agar culture plates (Merck, Germany) were used in this study. Six wells with 4 mm diameter and 5 mm depth were punched in each agar plate. All the procedures were carried out under aseptic condition. The bacteria were seeded on agar plates. Cotton swabs were used to ensure an even distribution of bacteria. Each well was filled with 30 μl of the test materials. One remaining well was left empty to serve as the negative control. The plates were incubated aerobically at 37° C for 48 hours. After incubation, the zone of bacterial inhibition around each well was measured by a blind examiner as the shortest distance (mm) from the outer margin of the wells to the initial point of bacterial growth.

Tube dilution method

The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the test materials was determined by the tube dilution method. Test materials were prepared in 50 μg/ml concentration and serially diluted from 1:2 up to 1:2048 dilutions. One milliliter of Muller-Hinton broth (Merck, Germany) and the same amount of test preparations were mixed in tubes. One hundred microliters of E. faecalis inoculums was added to each test tube. The tests were carried out in triplicate. The turbidity of the tubes was evaluated by observation after 24 hours incubation at 37° C.

Statistical Analysis

All analyses were performed by STATA software version 10 (StataCorp, College Station, Texas). Normality of data was assessed and approved by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by Sidak post hoc test was used to compare the mean zone of microbial growth in the groups. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULT

No zone of inhibition was observed adjacent to empty control wells. The means and standard deviations of the inhibition zones for test medicines are shown in Table 1. The results of ANOVA showed significant differences among the groups (F (5,50)= 232.4, P<0.001). Sidak post hoc test showed a significant difference between the two groups (p< 0.05) except for Ca(OH)2 and the negative control (Table 1). Amoxicillin and gentamycin showed the lowest MIC (25 μg/ml) followed by diclofenac and ibuprofen (50 μg/ml). Ca(OH)2 was the least effective of the test materials and could not inhibit bacterial growth in any concentrations.

Table 1.

Mean Zone of Microbial Growth Inhibition Provided by Test Drugs Against Enterococcus Faecalis

Groups (n=10) Mean (mm) SD*
Diclofenac 9.10 a 2.02
Ibuprofen 12.90 b 2.64
Ca(OH)2 1.00 c 0.00
Amoxicillin 20.67 d 0.82
Positive Control (Gentamicin) 15.70 e 1.49
Negative Control 0.00 cf 0.00
Open in a new tab

Groups identified by different superscript letters are significantly different (p<0.05),

*

SD= Standard Deviation

DISCUSSION

In the present study, the antibacterial activity of diclofenac against E. faecalis was compared with Ca(OH)2 as the commonly used intracanal medication and amoxicillin as a choice antibiotic when conventional root canal treatment alone is not sufficient [23]. Ibuprofen was used as one of the most commonly used NSAIDs for the management of endodontic pain. Before commencement of the study, a pilot study was carried out to choose a potent antimicrobial agent against E. faecalisas the positive control. In this pilot study, the antibacterial effect of four antibiotics -gentamycin, rifampin, erythromycin and clindamycin- was compared using agar diffusion test. Gentamicin was used as the positive control because it showed the greatest inhibition zone compared to the other tested antibiotics in the pilot study. We used test materials in 400 μg/ml aqueous preparations. There is a controversy regarding the most suitable concentration of aqueous Ca(OH)2 preparations.

Behnen et al. tested three different concentrations of Ca(OH)2 regarding antibacterial activity against E. faecalis and showed that 10% and 40% aqueous Ca(OH)2 were significantly more effective than the 50% solution [24]. They proposed that the ionic dissociation rate in low viscous preparations is higher than thick preparations. Safavi and Nakayama confirmed it and theorized that in saturated solutions of slightly soluble materials like Ca(OH)2, the ionic concentration will remain constant as long as some undissolved material is present. More viscous preparations of Ca(OH)2 seem to have the same ionic concentration as thin preparations [25, 26]. Blanscet et al. [26] studied the effect of various concentrations of aqueous Ca(OH)2 on its antibacterial activity against E. faecalis. They showed that the antibacterial activity of Ca(OH)2 in 400μg/ml and 600μg/ml concentrations was not significantly different. We used E. faecalis as the test bacterium because it has been shown to be associated with resistant endodontic infections [27, 28]. Results of the agar diffusion test showed that antibiotics (amoxicillin, gentamicin) had the greatest antibacterial activity followed by NSAIDs (ibuprofen, diclofenac). Ca(OH)2 failed to show antibacterial activity against E. faecalis. In the second stage, we used tube dilution assay to measure MIC of the test materials. This test is a somewhat quantitative method and a complement for agar diffusion assay. The result of tube dilution test was in harmony with agar diffusion assay. Tested antibiotics were effective in low concentrations (25μg/ml) followed by tested NSAIDs (50μg/ml). Dutta et al. showed that the MIC of diclofenac sodium against 45 strains of mycobacterium is 10–25μg/ml, which is much higher (5–6 times) than the MIC of the conventional anti-mycobacterial drugs [19, 21, 22]. In our study, Ca(OH)2 was unable to prevent the bacterial growth at any concentrations. This is in agreement with other studies which showed weak antibacterial effect of Ca(OH)2 against E. faecalis[29, 30].

One interesting finding of this study was the profound antibacterial activity of ibuprofen against E. faecalis. He et al. demonstrated the antibacterial activity of ibuprofen against six common periodontal pathogens [11]. The exact mechanism of this antibacterial activity of diclofenac and ibuprofen is unclear. However, studies have proposed inhibition of bacterial DNA synthesis [9] or impairment of membrane activity [19, 21] as possible underlying mechanisms. Some studies have shown that incorporation of anti-inflammatory agents such as corticosteroids or diclofenac in the composition of intracanal dressings reduces the inter-appointment pain [17, 31, 32]. Therefore, ibuprofen or diclofenac with both anti-inflammatory and antibacterial activity may theoretically propose as a substitute for Ca(OH)2 as the main component of the intracanal medication. The results of this study should be interpreted with caution. Agar diffusion test is a simple and well-standardized method of antibacterial testing [33]. It is the least costly of all susceptibility methods [33]. The media, equipment and supplies required for the test are readily accessible to most clinical laboratories. This method is especially well suited for determining the antimicrobial ability of water-soluble materials. A number of materials may be tested quickly using this method and a variety of products can be evaluated including liquids, solid materials and coated antimicrobial surfaces. However, this method has some disadvantages. Inhibition zones do not always have clear or regular boundaries and are influenced by the diffusion rate of materials through the agar, which in turn is affected by concentration, molecular weight and solubility of antimicrobials [34–36]. Furthermore, it is necessary to mention that determining MIC in vitro by the tube dilution method may not reflect the in vivo conditions where bacteria grow as biofilm on complex root canal surfaces. Further studies are underway to determine the antibacterial activity of NSAIDS against bacterial biofilms on root canal dentin.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it is concluded that:

  1. Ibuprofen and diclofenac have significantly more pronounced antibacterial activity against E. faecalis in comparison with Ca(OH)2.

  2. The antibacterial activity of ibuprofen and diclofenac against E. faecalis is less than antibiotics (amoxicillin and gentamycin).

Acknowledgments

This research was financially supported by the dental and periodontal disease research center of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Kakehashi S, Stanley HR, Fitzgerald RJ. The Effects of Surgical Exposures of Dental Pulps in Germ-Free and Conventional Laboratory Rats. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1965 Sep;20:340–9. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(65)90166-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Heithersay GS. Calcium hydroxide in the treatment of pulpless teeth with associated pathology. J Br Endod Soc. 1975 Jul;8(2):74–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1975.tb01000.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Jhamb S, Nikhil V, Singh V.An in vitro study of antibacterial effect of calcium hydroxide and chlorhexidine on Enterococcus faecalis Indian J Dent Res 2010October–Dec214512–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gangwar A.Antimicrobial effectiveness of different preparations of calcium hydroxide Indian J Dent Res 2011January–Feb22166–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mazumdar K, Dastidar SG, Park JH, Dutta NK. The anti-inflammatory non-antibiotic helper compound diclofenac: an antibacterial drug target. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2009 Aug;28(8):881–91. doi: 10.1007/s10096-009-0739-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rani Basu L, Mazumdar K, Dutta NK, Karak P, Dastidar SG. Antibacterial property of the antipsychotic agent prochlorperazine, and its synergism with methdilazine. Microbiol Res. 2005;160(1):95–100. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2004.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hendricks O, Butterworth TS, Kristiansen JE. The in-vitro antimicrobial effect of non-antibiotics and putative inhibitors of efflux pumps on Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2003 Sep;22(3):262–4. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(03)00205-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dastidar SG, Chaudhury A, Annadurai S, Roy S, Mookerjee M, Chakrabarty AN. In vitro and in vivo antimicrobial action of fluphenazine. J Chemother. 1995 Jun;7(3):201–6. doi: 10.1179/joc.1995.7.3.201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dastidar SG, Ganguly K, Chaudhuri K, Chakrabarty AN. The anti-bacterial action of diclofenac shown by inhibition of DNA synthesis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2000 Apr;14(3):249–51. doi: 10.1016/s0924-8579(99)00159-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wang WH, Wong WM, Dailidiene D, Berg DE, Gu Q, Lai KC, et al. Aspirin inhibits the growth of Helicobacter pylori and enhances its susceptibility to antimicrobial agents. Gut. 2003 Apr;52(4):490–5. doi: 10.1136/gut.52.4.490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hersh EV, Hammond BF, Fleury AA. Antimicrobial activity of flurbiprofen and ibuprofen in vitro against six common periodontal pathogens. J Clin Dent. 1991;3(1):1–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Scholer DW, Boettcher I, Ku EC, Schweizer A. Pharmacology of diclofenac sodium (Voltaren) Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1985 Nov;15(2 Suppl 1):61–4. doi: 10.1016/s0049-0172(85)80012-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zuniga JR, Malmstrom H, Noveck RJ, Campbell JH, Christensen S, Glickman RS, et al. Controlled phase III clinical trial of diclofenac potassium liquid-filled soft gelatin capsule for treatment of postoperative dental pain. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010 Nov;68(11):2735–42. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2010.05.075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kubitzek F, Ziegler G, Gold MS, Liu JM, Ionescu E. Analgesic efficacy of low-dose diclofenac versus paracetamol and placebo in postoperative dental pain. J Orofac Pain. 2003 Summer;17(3):237–44. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Buyukkurt MC, Gungormus M, Kaya O. The effect of a single dose prednisolone with and without diclofenac on pain, trismus, and swelling after removal of mandibular third molars. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Dec;64(12):1761–6. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.11.107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Saatchi M, Mosavat F, Razmara F, Soleymani B. Comparison of the effect of Ibuprofen and slow-released Diclofenac Sodium in controlling post endodontic pain. J Dent Tehran Uni Med Sci. 2010;22:185–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Negm MM. Effect of intracanal use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents on posttreatment endodontic pain. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994 May;77(5):507–13. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(94)90233-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kristiansen JE, Hendricks O, Delvin T, Butterworth TS, Aagaard L, Christensen JB, et al. Reversal of resistance in microorganisms by help of non-antibiotics. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007 Jun;59(6):1271–9. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkm071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Dutta NK, Annadurai S, Mazumdar K, Dastidar SG, Kristiansen JE, Molnar J, et al. Potential management of resistant microbial infections with a novel non-antibiotic: the anti-inflammatory drug diclofenac sodium. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007 Sep;30(3):242–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.04.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dutta NK, Mazumdar K, Seok SH, Park JH. The anti-inflammatory drug Diclofenac retains anti-listerial activity in vivo. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008 Aug;47(2):106–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02391.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Dutta NK, Mazumdar K, Dastidar SG, Park JH. Activity of diclofenac used alone and in combination with streptomycin against Mycobacterium tuberculosis in mice. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2007 Oct;30(4):336–40. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2007.04.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dutta NK, Kumar KA, Mazumdar K, Dastidar SG. In vitro and in vivo antimycobacterial activity of antiinflammatory drug, diclofenac sodium. Indian J Exp Biol. 2004 Sep;42(9):922–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Skucaite N, Peciuliene V, Maneliene R, Maciulskiene V. Antibiotic prescription for the treatment of endodontic pathology: a survey among Lithuanian dentists. Medicina (Kaunas) 2010;46(12):806–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Behnen MJ, West LA, Liewehr FR, Buxton TB, McPherson JC., 3rd Antimicrobial activity of several calcium hydroxide preparations in root canal dentin. J Endod. 2001 Dec;27(12):765–7. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200112000-00013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Safavi K, Nakayama TA. Influence of mixing vehicle on dissociation of calcium hydroxide in solution. J Endod. 2000 Nov;26(11):649–51. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200011000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Blanscet ML, Tordik PA, Goodell GG. An agar diffusion comparison of the antimicrobial effect of calcium hydroxide at five different concentrations with three different vehicles. J Endod. 2008 Oct;34(10):1246–8. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.07.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Fabricius L, Dahlen G, Holm SE, Moller AJ. Influence of combinations of oral bacteria on periapical tissues of monkeys. Scand J Dent Res. 1982 Jun;90(3):200–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1982.tb00728.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Sundqvist G, Figdor D, Persson S, Sjogren U. Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative re-treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1998 Jan;85(1):86–93. doi: 10.1016/s1079-2104(98)90404-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Peters LB, van Winkelhoff AJ, Buijs JF, Wesselink PR. Effects of instrumentation, irrigation and dressing with calcium hydroxide on infection in pulpless teeth with periapical bone lesions. Int Endod J. 2002 Jan;35(1):13–21. doi: 10.1046/j.0143-2885.2001.00447.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Badr AE, Omar N, Badria FA. A laboratory evaluation of the antibacterial and cytotoxic effect of Liquorice when used as root canal medicament. Int Endod J. 2011 Jan;44(1):51–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01794.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Negm MM. Intracanal use of a corticosteroid-antibiotic compound for the management of posttreatment endodontic pain. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001 Oct;92(4):435–9. doi: 10.1067/moe.2001.115975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ehrmann EH, Messer HH, Adams GG. The relationship of intracanal medicaments to postoperative pain in endodontics. Int Endod J. 2003 Dec;36(12):868–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2003.00735.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Jorgensen JH, Ferraro MJ. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: a review of general principles and contemporary practices. Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Dec;49(11):1749–55. doi: 10.1086/647952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Yasuda Y, Kamaguchi A, Saito T. In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of a new resin-based endodontic sealer against endodontic pathogens. J Oral Sci. 2008 Sep;50(3):309–13. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.50.309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Gomes BP, Pedroso JA, Jacinto RC, Vianna ME, Ferraz CC, Zaia AA, et al. In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of five root canal sealers. Braz Dent J. 2004;15(1):30–5. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402004000100006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Siqueira JF, Jr, Favieri A, Gahyva SM, Moraes SR, Lima KC, Lopes HP. Antimicrobial activity and flow rate of newer and established root canal sealers. J Endod. 2000 May;26(5):274–7. doi: 10.1097/00004770-200005000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Dentistry (Tehran, Iran) are provided here courtesy of Tehran University of Medical Sciences

RESOURCES