Biofilm formation on different materials for tooth restoration: analysis of surface characteristics

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of roughness parameters and hydrophobicity of restorative material used to restore non-carious cervical lesions on the biofilm formation. Four restorative materials were investigated: conventional glass ionomer cement (KF, Ketac Fill Plus, 3M ESPE), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (VT, Vitremer, 3M ESPE), nanofilled resin-modified glass ionomer cement (KN, Ketac Nano, 3M ESPE), and nanofilled resin composite (FZ, Filtek Z350 XT, 3M ESPE). Forty disk specimens were prepared from each material, dived in four groups. Five samples were used for topography parameters analysis using a 3D profilometry. The amplitude parameters (Sa and Sq), spatial parameter (Sds), and hybrid parameter (Ssc) were extracted in area using cut-off of 0.25 mm. Hydrophobicity was determined by the contact angle measurement of deionized water on the surface. The biofilm collected from a 24-year-old subject was grown on modified brain-heart infusion agar under aerobic conditions at 37°C for 24 h. Each test disk was immersed in 200 lL of biofilm suspension (n = 10) and incubated for 24 h at 37°C. Biofilm was evaluated after 24 h formation on each disk after stained with 1 % fluorescein using confocal laser-scanning microscopy. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (a = 0.05), Pearson correlation was used to compare topography parameters with biofilm formation. Significant differences were found in related amplitude parameters (Sa and Sq, FZ = KN [ VT [ KF). KN presented the highest hydrophobicity. FZ and KN presented the lowest thickness and biovolume of biofilm when compared with VT and KF. All topography parameters were significantly correlated with biofilm formation. FZ and KN, material with

The effects of different restorative materials on periodontopathogens in combined restorative-periodontal treatment

“…In contrast with previous studies, the similarity between the results of both RMGI and composite resin in our study was due to the use of a nanocomposite material. Flausino, et al 6 (2014) asserted that the incorporation of nanoparticles in composite resin improved surface topography with less biofilm formation in their study. In addition, giomer, which has the properties of fluoride release and fluoride recharge potential, was associated with results that are similar to the other restorative materials in this study.…”

Novel dental nanocomposites: fabrication and investigation of their physicochemical, mechanical and biological properties

“…Intense interest was focussed on the design and development of fluoride-releasing dental restorative materials mainly to prevent accumulation and proliferation of cariogenic bacteria or plaque that resulted to secondary caries [7][8][9][10].…”

“…It is well established that the proliferation of cariogenic bacteria (e.g., Streptococcus mutans) into the microleakage between the resin-based composites (RBCs) and tooth structure is the main reason for secondary caries [7,8]. In this context, antibacterial (especially fluoride-releasing) dental restorative materials can be considered as an efficient anticariogenic compounds for solving the mentioned thematic issue [9,10]. It should be pointed out that the anticariogenic effect of fluoride-releasing dental restorative materials is resulted from their abilities to enhance re-mineralization and the formation of acid-resistant fluorapatite [11,12].…”

Evaluation of the Degradation of a Resin Composed by the Metabolites Produced by Streptococcus mutans: in vitro Study

“…Laboratory tests do not accurately reproduce in vivo findings, but they represent a respectable parameter of analysis, since if the material exhibits satisfactory in vitro performance, it will likely result in good clinical performance. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]11 With the popularization of the use of composite resins in dentistry, a large number of studies were carried out to identify the degradation of this material when subjected to various types of damages, such as: masticatory and occlusal forces, food with acidic pH, among others. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][14][15][16] However, the potential effect of bacterial degradation activity on composite resins has not yet been extensively explored.…”

“…This is due to the production of the acid resulting from the sucrose fermentation. 10,11 The dissemination of the use of the composite resin and the few existing studies on the influence of S. mutans on these materials were taken into account in order to develop this work, whose objective was to evaluate the effect of metabolism of Streptococcus mutans in a 5% sucrose based culture medium on the surface of a composite resin used worldwide; and to verify whether these microorganisms have some implication in the microstructure of this resin, through micro-rugosity, micrograph and microhardness of Vickers test.…”