Artificial mouth model systems and their contribution to caries research: a review

Tang, Guoping; Yip, Hon Chi; Cutress, T.W.; Samaranayake, LP

doi:10.1016/s0300-5712(03)00009-5

Cited by 76 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, the use of AMS on bacterial biofilm researches can evaluate both the oral cavity microbe interactions in dental plaque that are stimulated and the same biofilm, as well as monitor the physical, chemical, biological, and molecular aspects with high accuracy. 6 Artificial mouth system is even capable of supplying nutrients continuously interspersed with the cleaning done by sterile distilled water as the substitute of saliva. It can be concluded that there are differences in profiles of biofilm attachment of S. mutans bacteria on the use of AMS method and static method.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 On the other hand, artificial mouth system (AMS) method is used simulate the formation of biofilms in the oral cavity as well as to evaluate the adherence of bacteria to surfaces through the dynamic conditions created. 6 This study aimed to compare the profile of S. mutans bacterial adhesion as the primary etiologic agent for dental caries between using static method and using artificial mouth (AMS), a dynamic method system.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Differences of Streptococcus mutans adhesion between artificial mouth systems: a dinamic and static methods

Morita¹,

Yulianto²,

Kusdina³

et al. 2017

Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Various materials have been used for treating dental caries. Dental caries is a disease that attacks hard tissues of the teeth. The initial phase of caries is a formation of bacterial biofilm, called as dental plaque. Dental restorative materials are expected for preventing secondary caries formation initiated by dental plaque. Initial bacterial adhesion is assumed to be an important stage of dental plaque formation. Bacteria that recognize the receptor for binding to the pellicle on tooth surface are known as initial bacterial colonies. One of the bacteria that plays a role in the early stage of dental plaque formation is Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans). Artificial mouth system (AMS) used in bacterial biofilm research on the oral cavity provides the real condition of oral cavity and continous and intermittent supply of nutrients for bacteria. Purpose: This study aimed to compare the profile of S. mutans bacterial adhesion as the primary etiologic agent for dental caries between using static method and using artificial mouth system, a dinamic. method (AMS). Method: The study was conducted at Faculty of Dentistry and Integrated Research and testing laboratory (LPPT) in Universitas Gadjah Mada from April to August 2015. Composite resin was used as the subject of this research. Twelve composite resins with a diameter of 5 mm and a width of 2 mm were divided into two groups, namely group using static method and group using dynamic method. Static method was performed by submerging the samples into a 100µl suspension of 1.5 x 108 CFU/ml S. mutans and 200µl BHI broth. Meanwhile AMS method was carried out by placing the samples at the AMS tube drained with 20 drops/minute of bacterial suspension and sterile aquadest. After 72 hours, five samples from each group were calculated for their biofilm mass using 1% crystal violet and read by a spectrofotometer with a wavelength of 570 nm. Meanwhile, one sample from each group was taken for its surface image using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Result: The results showed that S. mutans biofilm mass in the group using static method was 0.34, while in the group using AMS method was 0.09. The results of the statistical analysis then showed that there was a significant difference (p=0.02) in the formation of bacterial biofilm mass between those groups. SEM image in the group using static method also showed that the attachment of S. mutans was more numerous and had a longer chain than in the group using AMS method. Conclusion: There is a difference in the profile of S. mutans bacterial adhesion between using AMS method and static method.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences of Streptococcus mutans adhesion between artificial mouth systems: a dinamic and static methods

Morita¹,

Yulianto²,

Kusdina³

et al. 2017

Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The ultimate hope is to build the artificial mouth, or at least a steady state microcosm, to study caries processes. In spite of a range of dental plaque biofilm models systems [23], or mathematical models [24] as well as elaborate contraptions [25], we have not succeeded yet to simulate the complexities of the intraoral ecology and microenvironment.…”

Section: Dental Cariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secondary caries and microleakage

Jokstad

2016

Dental Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To critically appraise experimental ex vivo research that has focussed on secondary caries, and to offer possible explanations for the seemingly poor correlation to clinical observations. Methods: The literature relating to the etiopathogenesis or prevention of secondary caries gained from experimental ex vivo research was reviewed, with particular emphasis on microleakage and artificial caries-like lesions.Results: It is doubtful whether a caries wall lesion can exist independently of an outer enamel caries lesion. Microleakage experiments apparently continue to emerge regardless of multiple reviews questioning the reliability and validity of the method. Several of the approaches used to generate artificial caries-like lesions are very aggressive. Remarkably little discussion has evolved about how these aggressive approaches create microenvironments that do not occur in reality. Corrosion-and biodegradation products may influence the biofilm qualitatively and quantitatively and it is difficult to replicate these variables in any ex vivo environment. Clinical data sampling method, patient demography as well as study methodology influences the incidence and prevalence estimates of secondary caries. Clinical results based on clinical work in settings where cost per unit time is of nominal concern do not provide any indications on how the restorative material will perform when placed by the average dentists in the mouths of their spectrum of patients during a busy workday.Recommendations: The term "wall lesion" including its variants is ill defined, has been, and is still being used indiscriminately. Stakeholders should avoid using this ambiguous label due to its connotation to an entity that does not exist per se.

show abstract

“…Artificial mouth models can be used in vitro to study primary and secondary caries with regard to the microbial and antimicrobial properties of restorative materials or problems resulting from insufficient marginal adaptation of restorations. 15 An oral biofilm reactor (OBR) has been used to study oral biofilms in vitro simulating the human oral environment. 16,17 Using the OBR, artificial caries lesions were produced on bovine enamel at the interface of resin restorations by forming cariogenic biofilms, mainly for the expeditious preclinical testing of new dental materials.…”

Section: Australian Dental Journalmentioning

confidence: 99%

An artificial biofilm induced secondary caries model for in vitro studies

Hayati

Okada

Kitasako

et al. 2011

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of this study was to establish a new in vitro model for biofilm induced secondary caries studies using an oral biofilm reactor. Methods: An approximately 2 · 3 · 2 mm 3 sized dentino-enamel Class I cavity was prepared in the middle of a squareshaped specimen from the mid-labial portion of bovine incisors. The cavities were partially filled with either Clearfil AP-X with SE-Bond or Clearfil AP-X without any bond. Artificial biofilms were then formed on the resin composite filled surfaces using three species of oral bacteria in an oral biofilm reactor for 20 hours followed by 7-or 30-day incubation periods. Results: The lesions were clearly visible on fluorescence microscopy and by scanning electron microscopy in the enamel at the interface of resin restorations in all samples. The data from image analysis showed that the lesion size was largest in the No-bond samples with statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Demineralization along the cavity wall extended deeper in No-bond compared to SE-Bond samples and penetration was significantly deeper in No-bond 30-day samples. Conclusions: A primary artificial secondary caries model was established using biofilms for in vitro studies and the significance of using a bonding system could also be verified.

show abstract

Artificial mouth model systems and their contribution to caries research: a review

Cited by 76 publications

References 32 publications

Differences of Streptococcus mutans adhesion between artificial mouth systems: a dinamic and static methods

Differences of Streptococcus mutans adhesion between artificial mouth systems: a dinamic and static methods

Secondary caries and microleakage

An artificial biofilm induced secondary caries model for in vitro studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About