Bacteria in cavities beneath intermediary base materials

Qvist, Jørgen; Qvist, Vibeke; H, Lambjerg-Hansen

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0722.1977.tb01509.x

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although it is the most studied material among the tested sealers, the resin cement did not present antibacterial activity, which is in line with the other studies described in the literature 17,18 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Antimicrobial activity of different dental cements on aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans

Lima¹,

Souza²,

Oliveira³

et al. 2017

RO_UNICID

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate, in vitro, the possible antimicrobial activity against the A actinomycetemcomytans of three dental cements: glass-ionomer cement, zinc phosphate cement and resin cement. Material and Methods: Strains of A actinomycetemcomitans ATCC 29522 were used. The microorganism was grown in BHI Agar and transferred to tubes containing sterile saline solution. The suspension was calibrated to a similar turbidity to the 0.5 tube from McFarland scale. A base layer consisting of 20 ml of BHI agar was placed in sterile Petri 90 x 15 mm plates. After solidification, was added 0,1 uL of microbial suspension, and three wells with 6 mm in diameter and 1mm deep were made, the wells were filled with cements with zinc phosphate cement, glass-ionomer cement and resin cement indicated for permanent cementation for fixed prostheses immediately after handling and positive (chlorhexidine) and negative (saline) controls. Results: After 48 hours the presence or absence of inhibition halo of microbial growth was analyzed around the specimens. Conclusion: Zinc phosphate cement and glass ionomer cement tested showed antibacterial activity against A actinomycetemcomitans unlike resin cement. Descriptors: Periodontium • Dental Cements • Periodontal Diseases RESUMOO objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar in vitro a ação antibacteriana de três cimentos odontológicos utilizados para fixação de próteses fixas: ionômero de vidro (Vitro CemR), fosfato de zinco (Cimento LSR) e cimento resinoso (Dual CementR) ao microrganismo Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans ATCC 29522. A espécie foi ajustada a 0,5 de MacFarland. Foi realizado o teste de difusão em ágar em triplicata, em meio BHI onde 0,1 µL foi semeado por placa. Um corpo de prova em formato de disco de cada material foi colocado em poços de 6mm de profundidade. Como controles positivo e negativo foram utilizados clorexidina e soro fisiológico respectivamente. Após a distribuição dos corpos de prova, as placas foram incubadas a 37ºC por 48 horas. O halo de inibição formado foi mensurado. O cimento resinoso não apresentou atividade antibacteriana, diferentemente do fosfato de zinco e ionômero de vidro, que apresentaram positividade em todas as amostras, havendo diferença entre eles com o fosfato de zinco apresentando maior atividade. Cimentos de fosfato de zinco e ionômero de vidro possuem atividade antimicrobiana, diferentemente dos cimentos resinosos.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Antimicrobial activity of different dental cements on aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans

Lima¹,

Souza²,

Oliveira³

et al. 2017

RO_UNICID

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neither improved adaptation (9) nor elimination of bacterial growth is effected by Tubuiicid ( Table 1). Prevention of marginal leakage and antibacterial (12,13,16) and impermeable (6) cavity lining materials like Dycal are probably more important for the pursuit of pulpally inert dental restoradons.…”

Section: A Correlation Between the Condidon Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monkey pulpal response to composite resin restorations in cavities treated with various cleansing agents

Eriksen

Leidal

1979

European J Oral Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract— Pulpal response to composite resin restorations placed in experimentally prepared cavities treated with various cavity cleansing and etching agents were studied in monkey teeth. The use of etching agents and cleansers with a demineralizing potential enhanced the pulpal response to composite resin restorations. Bacterial proliferation on the cavity walls around the composite restorations may be one of several factors causing the harmful pulpal responses found. The protective effect of a calcium hydroxide‐containing cavity lining material was confirmed.

show abstract

“…We excluded one study by Baratieri et al, 4 one study by Gordan et al 5 and those by Gupta et al, 6 Miller et al 7 and Wright et al 8 as it was not clear whether they were RCTs. We also excluded studies by Fanian et al, 9 Lim and McCabe, 10 Sandoval et al 11 and Qvist et al 12 as they were conducted on extracted teeth. Finally, we also excluded studies by Shaddy et al 13 and Hucke et al 14 as they were conference abstracts and full access to data and study details was not possible.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence summary: which dental liners under amalgam restorations are more effective in reducing postoperative sensitivity?

Nasser

2011

Br Dent J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since August 2009, members of the Primary Care Dentistry Research Forum (www.dentistryresearch.org) have taken part in an online vote to identify questions in day-to-day practice that they felt most needed to be answered with conclusive research. The question that receives the most votes each month forms the subject of a critical appraisal of the relevant literature. Each month a new round of voting takes place to decide which further questions will be reviewed. Dental practitioners and dental care professionals are encouraged to take part in the voting and submit their own questions to be included in the vote by joining the website. The paper below details a summary of the findings of the ninth critical appraisal. In order to address the question raised by dentistry research forum, first a search was conducted for systematic reviews on the topic. There was one systematic review retrieved comparing bonded amalgam restorations versus non-bonded amalgam restorations. However, there was no other systematic review identified assessing the effectiveness of dental liners under amalgam restorations in general. Therefore, a search was conducted for any randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing use of a lining under amalgam restorations versus no lining or RCTs comparing differing lining materials under amalgam against each other. There were eight relevant RCTs identified. Due to the low quality, small sample sizes or lack of adequate reporting of the outcome data, the evidence is inadequate to claim or refute a difference in postoperative sensitivity between different dental liners. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to answer this question. These RCTs would be preferably included and synthesised in a systematic review.

show abstract

Bacteria in cavities beneath intermediary base materials

Cited by 6 publications

References 20 publications

Antimicrobial activity of different dental cements on aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans

Antimicrobial activity of different dental cements on aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans

Monkey pulpal response to composite resin restorations in cavities treated with various cleansing agents

Evidence summary: which dental liners under amalgam restorations are more effective in reducing postoperative sensitivity?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About