Evaluation of the Effect of Propolis Nanoparticles on Antimicrobial Properties and Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Composite Bonded to Bovine Enamel

Abstract

Objectives:This study sought to assess the effect of curcumin nanoparticles (curcNPs) on antimicrobial property and shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic composite to bovine enamel.Materials and Methods:In this in vitro, experimental study, 1%, 5% and 10% curcNPs were added to Transbond XT composite. Stainless steel brackets were bonded to 48 sound bovine incisors in four groups (n=12) using composite containing 0% (control), 1%, 5% and 10% curcNPs. The bracket-tooth SBS was measured by a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) score was calculated after debonding using a stereomicroscope. Also, 180 discs were fabricated of the four composites; 108 were subjected to eluted component test, 36 were used for disc diffusion test and 36 were used for biofilm test to assess their antimicrobial activity against Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguinis and Lactobacillus acidophilus.Results:The highest and lowest SBS belonged to control and 10% curcNP groups, respectively. The difference in SBS was significant among the four groups (P=0.008). The SBS of control group was significantly higher than that of 10% curcNPs (P=0.006). The four groups were not significantly different in terms of ARI score (P>0.05). Growth inhibition zones were not seen in any group. In biofilm test, the colony counts of all bacteria significantly decreased by an increase in percentage of curcNPs. Colony count significantly decreased only at 30 days.Conclusions:At 1% concentration, curcNPs have significant antimicrobial activity against cariogenic bacteria with no adverse effect on SBS. However, insolubility of curcNPs remains a major drawback.

Antibacterial Properties of Nanoparticles in Dental Restorative Materials. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Although these results pointed to greater antibacterial capacity for high concentrations of TiO 2 against S. mutans and S. sanguinis, the effect obtained was far less against L. acidophilus. But the study by Sodagar et al [83] did not follow the same pattern; samples showed less antibacterial potential than Sodagar et al [16], while samples modified with CurcNP showed better results against L. acidophilus, regardless of the CurcNP concentration [83]. These findings could mean that TiO 2 nanoparticles are more effective against S. mutans and S. sanguinis colonies, and CurcNP nanoparticles are more effective against L. acidophilus, although further research with a more clearly defined protocol is required to confirm this hypothesis.…”

“…Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus are mainly responsible for the appearance of caries, and for this reason most of the studies reviewed used these bacteria in antibacterial tests. Even so, certain studies used other microorganisms in their antibacterial tests, such as Escherichia coli [25,59,66,67,74,79], Staphylococcus aureus [5,59,66,67,74,79], Pseudomonas aeruginosa [59,67,74], Streptococcus sobrinus [2,8,60], Streptococcus sanguinis [12,16,83], Staphylococcus epidermidis [67], Streptococcus oralis [2,66], Streptococcus gordonii [2], Actinomyces naeslundii [2,76], Candida krusei [66], Porphyromonas gingivalis [45,46,53], Prevotella intermedia [45,46,53], Prevotella nigrescens [45,53], Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans [45,46,53], Fusobacterium nucleatum [45,46,53], Enterococcus faecalis [45,53,…”

“…Among these, a wide variety of techniques were employed, sterilization through ethylene oxide being the most commonly used [4,10,11,19,[26][27][28][29]33,34,36,37,40,[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][51][52][53][54]56,57,75,77]. Less commonly used sterilization techniques were: autoclave [3,58], gamma radiation [12,16,83], ultraviolet light [78,80,82,88,90], and incubation in 70% ethanol [30,91,92]. Eight studies did not describe the technique used for sterilization.…”

“…Meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity, with a Q-valor of 143.9 (Q test p-value = 0) and an I-square value of 85.4 ( Figure 4). Four different studies were included in the first meta-analysis [10,16,64,83]. Figure 5 shows the results of the second meta-analysis, comparing the antibacterial capacity of resin-based materials between materials incorporating nanoparticles and those without which includes three studies [3,6,58].…”

“…The meta-analysis showed heterogeneity, with a Q value of Q = 214.17, Q test p-value = 0, I-square = 79.7 ( Figure 6). Ten different studies were included in the third meta-analysis [3,6,8,10,16,19,58,64,65,78,83]. When subgroups were analyzed in relation to the type of nanoparticles incorporated, no significant effect was found for the subgroup CaP (Hedges's G= -0.65, CI 95% from -1.33 to 0.02, p-value = 0.058, test Z = -1.89) or the subgroup CaP/Ag (Hedges's G = -0.44, CI 95% from -1.11 to 0.22, p-value = 0.191, Z test = -1.31).…”