Comparative Evaluation of the Antibacterial Efficacy of Type II Glass Ionomer Cement, Type IX Glass Ionomer Cement, and AMALGOMER™ Ceramic Reinforcement by Modified “Direct Contact Test”: An in vitro Study

Abstract

Background: Streptococcus mutans (ATCC25175) has a profound effect on the incidence of dental decay in the human population. Many studies have been performed to assess the antimicrobial activity of different cements. However, little or no information is available about the antibacterial properties of Type II glass ionomer cement (GIC), Type IX GIC, and AMALGOMER™ ceramic reinforcement (CR).Aim: To comparatively evaluate the antibacterial activity of Type II GIC, Type IX GIC, and AMALGOMER™ CR by modified direct contact test.Materials and methods: The total sample size was 72 which was divided into four study groups. Six wells were coated by each: Type II GIC, Type IX GIC, AMALGOMER™ CR, and control group (only S. mutans). Statistical analysis was done using analysis of variance and the intergroup comparison was done using post hoc Tukey test.Results: AMALGOMER™ CR was found to have a better antibacterial effect as compared with Type II and IX GIC.Conclusion: AMALGOMER™ CR can serve as a valuable cement in pediatric dentistry due to its anticariogenic property.How to cite this article: Hugar SM, Assudani HG, Patil V, Kukreja P, Uppin C, Thakkar P. Comparative Evaluation of the Antibacterial Efficacy of Type II Glass lonomer Cement, Type IX Glass Ionomer Cement, and AMALGOMER™ Ceramic Reinforcement by Modified “Direct Contact Test”: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(2):114-117.

Effect of two different polishing systems on fluoride release, surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of newly developed restorative materials

“…Unlike other studies, in the current study, the material groups showed similar bacterial adherence . Hugar et al evaluated the bacterial density on Amagomer CR, Type II GIC and Type IX GIC without using saliva. Amalgomer CR showed better antibacterial effects compared with Type II GIC and Type IX GIC.…”

Antibacterial Effect of Bioactive Composite versus Glass ionomer using Different Storage Media

“…This results were in accordance with Sultan (2019) (23) who found that Amalgomer showed statistically significant the lowest value for the mean diameter of inhibition zone after 48 hours. However, this finding was in disagreement with Hugar et al (2016) (24) who demonstrated that Amalgomer have high antibacterial effect. This may attribute to the different incubation periods as the antibacterial effect were taken after 1 hour, 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th day.…”

Antibacterial Activity and Fluoride Release of Nanochitosan-modified Glass Ionomer Compared to Conventional Cement: In vitro study

“…It was carefully avoided that the substance would run to the bottom of the well since that would obstruct the light's route through the microplate well and result in erroneous readings. Optical density measurements were read every hour for 6, 24, 48 and 72 hours in each well (An ELISA Reader Thermo Labsystems Multiskan, China) at 630 nm (Hugar et al 2016;Kurt et al 2021).…”