Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on two bioactive cements: an in-vitro study.
Streptococcus mutans
Bacterial adhesion
Biofilm
Composite resins
Glass Ionomer cement
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Oct 2024
24 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
15
06
2024
accepted:
18
10
2024
medline:
25
10
2024
pubmed:
25
10
2024
entrez:
25
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Dental restorative materials are recognized as artificial niches that facilitate the adherence and accumulation of oral microorganisms. To mitigate oral diseases and extend the lifespan of restorations, it is advantageous to use dental materials that exhibit low susceptibility to bacterial adhesion. To evaluate and compare bacterial adhesion on two bioactive restorative materials, a glass hybrid restorative, and an alkasite with a nanohybrid resin composite as a positive control. The secondary objectives were to compare the surface roughness (SR) of the materials and determine the correlation between the bacterial adhesion and the SR. The samples consisted of 33 polished discs of each material: Group A: Tetric Alkasite had significantly lower OD and CFUs (p < 0.001 and p = 0.015 respectively). According to the SEM analysis, the glass hybrid restorative had lower mean bacterial cell count with no significant difference between the groups. The nanohybrid composite had the smoothest surface that was significantly lower than the alkasite and glass hybrid restorative (p = 0.002). None of the groups demonstrated a correlation between bacterial adhesion and SR. Alkasite impedes bacterial adhesion better than the glass hybrid restorative and nanohybrid composite, while smoother surfaces are achieved with the nanohybrid composite.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Dental restorative materials are recognized as artificial niches that facilitate the adherence and accumulation of oral microorganisms. To mitigate oral diseases and extend the lifespan of restorations, it is advantageous to use dental materials that exhibit low susceptibility to bacterial adhesion.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate and compare bacterial adhesion on two bioactive restorative materials, a glass hybrid restorative, and an alkasite with a nanohybrid resin composite as a positive control. The secondary objectives were to compare the surface roughness (SR) of the materials and determine the correlation between the bacterial adhesion and the SR.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
The samples consisted of 33 polished discs of each material: Group A: Tetric
RESULTS
RESULTS
Alkasite had significantly lower OD and CFUs (p < 0.001 and p = 0.015 respectively). According to the SEM analysis, the glass hybrid restorative had lower mean bacterial cell count with no significant difference between the groups. The nanohybrid composite had the smoothest surface that was significantly lower than the alkasite and glass hybrid restorative (p = 0.002). None of the groups demonstrated a correlation between bacterial adhesion and SR.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Alkasite impedes bacterial adhesion better than the glass hybrid restorative and nanohybrid composite, while smoother surfaces are achieved with the nanohybrid composite.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39449053
doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-05083-y
pii: 10.1186/s12903-024-05083-y
doi:
Substances chimiques
Composite Resins
0
Dental Cements
0
Resin Cements
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1278Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Montanaro L, Campoccia D, Rizzi S, Donati ME, Breschi L, Prati C, Arciola CR. Evaluation of bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans on dental restorative materials. Biomaterials. 2004;25:4457–63.
pubmed: 15046936
doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.11.031
Bilgili D, Dündar A, Barutçugil Ç, Tayfun D, Özyurt ÖK. Surface properties and bacterial adhesion of bulk-fill composite resins. J Dent. 2020;95:103317.
pubmed: 32165185
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103317
Kreve S, Dos Reis AC. Bacterial adhesion to biomaterials: what regulates this attachment? A review. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2021;57:85–96.
pubmed: 34188729
pmcid: 8215285
doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2021.05.003
Janus J, Fauxpoint G, Arntz Y, Pelletier H, Etienne O. Surface roughness and morphology of three nanocomposites after two different polishing treatments by a multitechnique approach. Dent Mater. 2010;26:416–25.
pubmed: 20097415
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.09.014
Silva RA, Santos FR, Spadoro AC, Polizello AC, De Rossi A, Moreira MR. Nelson--Filho P. Profile of fluoride release from a nanohybrid composite resin. Dent 3000. 2015;3:a001.
Maran BM, de Geus JL, Gutiérrez MF, Heintze S, Tardem C, Barceleiro MO, Reis A, Loguercio AD. Nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid resin-based composite in patients with direct restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2020;99:10347.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103407
Cho K, Rajan G, Farrar P, Prentice L, Prusty BG. Dental resin composites: a review on materials to product realizations. Compos Part B: Eng. 2022;230:109495.
doi: 10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.109495
Tiskaya M, Al-Eesa NA, Wong FSL, Hill RG. Characterization of the bioactivity of two commercial composites. Dent Mater. 2019;35:1757–68.
pubmed: 31699444
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.10.004
Jefferies SR. Bioactive and biomimetic restorative materials: a comprehensive review. Part I. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2014;26:14–26.
pubmed: 24341542
doi: 10.1111/jerd.12069
Makanjuola J, Deb S. Chemically activated Glass-Ionomer cements as bioactive materials in Dentistry: a review. Prosthesis. 2023;5:327–45.
doi: 10.3390/prosthesis5010024
Emamieh S, Ghasemi A, Torabzadeh H. Hygroscopic expansion of aesthetic restorative materials: one-year report. J Dent (Tehran). 2011;8:25–32.
pubmed: 21998804
Šalinović I, Stunja M, Schauperl Z, Verzak Ž, Malčić AI, Rajić VB. Mechanical Properties of High Viscosity Glass Ionomer and Glass Hybrid Restorative materials. Acta Stomatal Croat. 2019;53:125–31.
doi: 10.15644/asc53/2/4
Miletić I, Baraba A, Basso M, Pulcini MG, Marković D, Perić T, Ozkaya CA, Turkun LS. Clinical performance of a Glass-Hybrid System compared with a Resin Composite in the posterior region: results of a 2-year Multicenter Study. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22:235–47.
pubmed: 32435764
Moshaverinia M, Navas A, Jahedmanesh N, Shah KC, Moshaverinia A, Ansari S. Comparative evaluation of the physical properties of a reinforced glass ionomer dental restorative material. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122:154–9.
pubmed: 31326149
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.012
EQUIA Forte™ HT Comprehensive guide, Europe GC, Leuven NV. Belgium. 2020. https://www.gc.dental/europe/sites/europe.gc.dental/files/products/downloads/equiaforteht/manual/MAN_Comprehensive_Guide_EQUIA_Forte_HT.pdf . Accessed 21 April 2022.
Ilie N. Comparative effect of self-or dual-curing on Polymerization Kinetics and mechanical properties in a Novel, Dental-Resin-based composite with Alkaline Filler. Materials. 2018;11:1–12.
doi: 10.3390/ma11010108
Naz F, Samad Khan A, Kader MA, Al Gelban LOS, Mousa NMA, Asiri RSH, Hakeem AS. Comparative evaluation of mechanical and physical properties of a new bulk-fill alkasite with conventional restorative materials. Saudi Dent J. 2021;33:666–73.
pubmed: 34803317
doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.04.012
Sujith R, Yadav TG, Pitalia D. Comparative evaluation of mechanical and Microleakage properties of Cention-N, Composite, and Glass Ionomer Cement Restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2020;21:691–5.
pubmed: 33025941
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2837
Poggio C, Arciola CR, Rosti F, Scribante F, Saino E, Visai L. Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to different restorative materials. Int J Artif Organs. 2009;32:671–7.
pubmed: 19882549
doi: 10.1177/039139880903200917
Bohinc K, Tintor E, Kovačević D, Vidrih R, Zore A, Abram A, Kojić Ž, Obradović M, Veselinović V, Dolić O. Bacterial adhesion on glass–ionomer cements and Micro/Nano Hybrid Composite Dental surfaces. Coatings. 2021;11:235.
doi: 10.3390/coatings11020235
Dutra D, Pereira G, Kantorski K, Valandro L, Zanatta F. Does Finishing and Polishing of restorative materials affect bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation? A systematic review. Oper Dent. 2018;43:37–52.
doi: 10.2341/17-073-L
Tu Y, Ren H, He Y, Ying J, Chen Y. Interaction between microorganisms and dental material surfaces: general concepts and research progress. J Oral Microbiol. 2023;15:2196897.
pubmed: 37035450
pmcid: 10078137
doi: 10.1080/20002297.2023.2196897
Daabash R, Alqahtani MQ, Price RB, Alshabib A, Niazy A, Alshaafi MM. Surface properties and Streptococcus mutans biofilm adhesion of ion-releasing resin-based composite materials. J Dent. 2023;134:104549.
pubmed: 37196686
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104549
EQUIA Forte
Todd JC. Scientific Documentation: Cention N. Ivoclar Vivadent Press, Schaan L. 2016 https://www.ivoclarvivadent.in/p/all/cention-n . Accessed 14 Sept 2019.
Cention N, Flow Chart, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan. Liechtenstein. https://downloadcenter.ivoclar.com/#search-text=cention&details=19606 . Accessed 21 April 2022.
Al-Abdullah AS, Al-Bounni RS, Al-Omari M. Color stability of Tetric
doi: 10.1177/2229411217729080
3 M™ ESPE™ Sof-Lex™ Diamond Polishing System Technical Data Sheet. 3 M Oral Care, St. Paul, MN, USA. 2016. https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/1122935O/3m-sof-lex-diamond-polishing-system-technical-data-sheet.pdf Accessed 21 April 2022.
Namen F, Galan J Jr., de Oliveira JF, Cabreira RD, Silva Filhoa FC, Souza AB, et al. Surface properties of dental polymers: measurements of contact angles, roughness and fluoride release. Mater Res. 2008;11:239–43.
doi: 10.1590/S1516-14392008000300002
de Fátima A, Melo AMDS, de Assunção IV, Borges BCD. Impact of additional polishing method on physical, micromorphological, and microtopographical properties of conventional composites and bulk fill. Microsc Res Tech. 2020;83:211–22.
doi: 10.1002/jemt.23404
Ferracane JL, Sidhu SK, Melo MA, Yeo IS, Diogenes A, Darvell BW. Bioactive dental materials: developing, promising, confusing. JADA Foundational Sci. 2023;2:100022.
doi: 10.1016/j.jfscie.2023.100022
Hahnel S, Ionescu AC, Cazzaniga G, Ottobelli M, Brambilla E. Biofilm formation and release of fluoride from dental restorative materials in relation to their surface properties. J Dent. 2017;60:14–24.
pubmed: 28212980
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.005
Rajić VB, Miletić I, Gurgan S, Peroš K, Verzak Ž, Malčić AI. Fluoride release from Glass Ionomer with Nano Filled Coat and Varnish. Acta Stomatal Croat. 2018;52:307–13.
doi: 10.15644/asc52/4/4
Neelakantan P, John S, Anand S, Sureshbabu N, Subbarao C. Fluoride release from a new glass-ionomer cement. Oper Dent. 2011;36:80–5.
pubmed: 21488733
doi: 10.2341/10-219-LR
Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials—fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater. 2007;23:343–62.
pubmed: 16616773
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.022
Habib SI, Yassen AA, Bayoumi RE. Influence of nanocoats on the physicomechanical properties and microleakage of bulk-fill and resin-modified glass ionomer cements: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021;22:62–8.
pubmed: 34002711
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3020
Gurgan S, Vural UK, Atalay C, Tassery H, Miletic I, Gurpinar SS. Antibacterial activity and biofilm inhibition of new-generation hybrid/fluoride-releasing restorative materials. Appl Sci. 2022;12:2434.
doi: 10.3390/app12052434
Al-Taee L, Deb S, Banerjee A. An in vitro assessment of the physical properties of manually-mixed and encapsulated glass-ionomer cements. BDJ open. 2020;6:12.
pubmed: 32821430
pmcid: 7419565
doi: 10.1038/s41405-020-0040-x
Kim H, Park H, Lee J, Seo H. Assessment of Fluoride Release through dentin Adhesive in the Alkasite Restorative Material and Giomer. J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent. 2021;48:367–75.
doi: 10.5933/JKAPD.2021.48.4.367
Kasraei S, Haghi S, Valizadeh S, Panahandeh N, Nejadkarimi S. Phosphate ion release and alkalizing potential of three Bioactive Dental materials in comparison with Composite Resin. Int J Dent. 2021; 5572569.
Gupta N, Jaiswal S, Nikhil V, Gupta S, Jha P, Bansal P. Comparison of fluoride ion release and alkalizing potential of a new bulk-fill alkasite. J Conserv Dent. 2019;22:296–9.
pubmed: 31367117
pmcid: 6632620
doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_74_19
Feiz A, Nicoo MA, Parastesh A, Jafari N, Sarfaraz D. Comparison of antibacterial activity and fluoride release in tooth-colored restorative materials: Resin-modified glass ionomer, zirconomer, giomer, and cention N. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2022;19:104.
pubmed: 36605145
doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.363534
Senawongse P, Pongprueksa P. Surface roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid resin composites after polishing and brushing. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19:265–73.
pubmed: 17877626
doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2007.00116.x
Ülker Ö, Yilmaz F. Evaluation of the Effect of different finishing and Polishing systems on Surface Roughness and Color Stability of different restorative materials. J Int Dent Sci. 2021;7(2):16–26.
Jaramillo-Cartagena R, López-Galeano EJ, Latorre-Correa F, Agudelo-Suárez AA. Effect of Polishing systems on the Surface Roughness of Nano-Hybrid and Nano-Filling Composite resins: a systematic review. Dent J (Basel). 2021;9:95.
pubmed: 34436007
doi: 10.3390/dj9080095
Erdemir U, Yildiz E, Eren MM, Ozsoy A, Topcu FT. Effects of polishing systems on the surface roughness of tooth-colored materials. J Dent Sci. 2013;8:160–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2012.05.007
Hazan R, Que YA, Maura D, Rahme LG. A method for high throughput determination of viable bacteria cell counts in 96-well plates. BMC Microbiol. 2012;12:259.
pubmed: 23148795
pmcid: 3534621
doi: 10.1186/1471-2180-12-259
McGoverin C, Steed C, Esan A, Robertson J, Swift S, Vanholsbeeck F. Optical methods for bacterial detection and characterization. APL Photonics. 2021;6:080903.
doi: 10.1063/5.0057787
Raval NC, Wadhwani CP, Jain S, Darveau RP. The interaction of implant luting cements and oral bacteria linked to peri-implant disease: an in vitro analysis of planktonic and biofilm growth–a preliminary study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17:1029–35.
pubmed: 24909337
doi: 10.1111/cid.12235
El Abed S, Ibnsouda SK, Latrache H, Hamadi F. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and environmental SEM: suitable tools for study of adhesion stage and biofilm formation. In: Viacheslav Kazmiruk, editor. Scanning Electron Microscopy. London, UK: Intechopen; 2012. https://doi.org/10.5772/34990 .
doi: 10.5772/34990
Farrugia C, Cassar G, Valdramidis V, Camilleri J. Effect of sterilization techniques prior to antimicrobial testing on physical properties of dental restorative materials. J Dent. 2015;43:703–14.
pubmed: 25913142
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.03.012
de Sousa-Lima RX, de Lima JFM, Silva de Azevedo LJ, de Freitas Chaves LV, Alonso RCB, Borges BCD. Surface morphological and physical characterizations of glass ionomer cements after sterilization processes. Microsc Res Tech. 2018;81:1208–13.
pubmed: 30238559
doi: 10.1002/jemt.23119