Effect of Surface Characteristics on Adherence of S. mutans Biofilms to Indirect Resin Composites

Ikeda, Masaomi; Matin, Khairul; Nikaido, Toru; Foxton, Richard M.; Tagami, Junji

doi:10.4012/dmj.26.915

Cited by 87 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are supported by previous studies showing that surface roughness as well as composition of the resin composites (filler size and matrix monomer) influence biofilm formation 3,24,45,47) . Filled resins (composites) and particularly DMA (organic composites) display several features.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…Other investigators state that polished composite surfaces supported larger amounts of plaque due to the loss of superficial filler particles during the polishing process 4,25,50,52) . These observations contradict those of other authors who found that surface polishing of composite materials rendered the materials more plaque resistant and that the procedure was important to reduce bacterial accumulation 8,37,45) . The use of air-polishing devices in oral hygiene and periodontal therapy has proven to be a very effective means in rapidly removing stains and dental plaque 10) .…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

“…Thus a smooth surface with low surface free energy is important to modulate biofilm adherence and growth. An improvement in surface conditions could be achieved if resin composites were carefully polished 8,29,37,45) . In addition, biofilm formation is also influenced by the type (chemical composition) of resin biomaterial 3,24,[45][46][47] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An improvement in surface conditions could be achieved if resin composites were carefully polished 8,29,37,45) . In addition, biofilm formation is also influenced by the type (chemical composition) of resin biomaterial 3,24,[45][46][47] . Furthermore, it has been stated that the siloxane backbone provides the restorative material with its hydrophobic nature 48,49) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Effects of various chair-side surface treatment methods on dental restorative materials with respect to contact angles and surface roughness

Sturz¹,

Faber

Scheer

et al. 2015

Dental Materials Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of various chair-side surface treatment methods on dental restorative materials with respect to contact angles and surface roughness

Sturz¹,

Faber

Scheer

et al. 2015

Dental Materials Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…7,8 AMS model consisted of two transparent tubes made of glass with a diameter of 10 cm. The first tube was used to accommodate BHI broth as a nutrient medium for bacteria, while the second tube kept RK samples in anaerobic state and also avoided RK samples from contamination.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

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

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

Evaluation of surface characteristic and bacterial adhesion of low‐shrinkage resin composites

Can

Dündar

Barutçugil

et al. 2021

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to examine the surface characteristics of low shrinkage composites and adhesion of Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus mitis to these materials.Control material (glass) and three low shrinkage composites (Charisma Diamond, Kalore GC, Beatiful II LS) were used. After polishing procedure was applied to composite specimens, surface roughness (SR), surface free energy (SFE), and contact angle measurements were performed. Surfaces of composite were analyzed using scanning electron microscope and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. After pellicle formation with artificial saliva, S. mutans and S. mitis biofilms were incubated in 5% CO 2 for 24 h at 37 C and were analyzed using confocal laser scanning microscopy. The lowest SR and highest SFE values were found in the control group. While the contact angle of control was statistically lower than composites, statistically difference was not found between composite groups. S. mutans adhesion of composites was significantly lower than control group, but there was no significant difference between composites. S. mitis adhesion of all groups was statistically similar. SR did not affect the S. mutans and S. mitis adhesion. Less adherence of S. mutans to low shrinkage composites was associated with low SFE and high contact angle values.Even though the highest SR was observed in the Charisma Diamond, no difference was found between the composites in terms of bacterial adhesion.

show abstract

Effect of Surface Characteristics on Adherence of S. mutans Biofilms to Indirect Resin Composites

Cited by 87 publications

References 40 publications

Effects of various chair-side surface treatment methods on dental restorative materials with respect to contact angles and surface roughness

Effects of various chair-side surface treatment methods on dental restorative materials with respect to contact angles and surface roughness

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

Evaluation of surface characteristic and bacterial adhesion of low‐shrinkage resin composites

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About