scholarly journals Effect of Polishing Procedure on the Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of Provisional Restorative Materials

2018 ◽  
Vol 06 (02) ◽  
pp. 9-18
Author(s):  
Néstor Usiel Lara-Jara ◽  
Gabriel Fernando Romo-Ramírez ◽  
María del Pilar Goldaracena-Azuara ◽  
Antonio Aragón-Piña ◽  
Claudia Butrón-Téllez Girón ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bacterial Adhesion ◽  
Restorative Materials

Effect of surface sealant on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of bulk-fill composites

2021 ◽  
pp. 096739112110055
Author(s):  
Gunce Ozan ◽  
Meltem Mert Eren ◽  
Cansu Vatansever ◽  
Ugur Erdemir
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Bacterial Adhesion ◽  
Confocal Laser ◽  
High Caries Risk ◽  
Two Samples ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Surface Sealants ◽  
Surface Sealant ◽  
Effect Of Surface

Surface sealants are reported to ensure surface smoothness and improve the surface quality of composite restorations. These sealants should also reduce the bacterial adhesion on composite surfaces however, there is not much information regarding their performance on bulk-fill composite materials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface sealant application on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of various restorative materials. Disc-shaped samples were prepared from a compomer, a conventional composite and three bulk-fill composites. Specimens of each group were divided into two groups (n = 9): with/without surface sealant (Biscover LV, [BLV]). Surface roughness values were examined by profilometry and two samples of each group were examined for bacterial adhesion on a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Bacterial counts were calculated by both broth cultivation and microscopic images. Results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni/Dunn tests. Following the BLV application, there was a decrease in the surface roughness values of all groups however, only Tetric N-Ceram Bulk and Beautifil-Bulk groups showed significantly smoother surfaces (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences among material groups without BLV application. Evaluating bacterial adhesion after BLV application, conventional composite had the lowest values among all followed by the compomer group. Beautifil-Bulk had significantly the highest bacterial adhesion (p < 0.05), followed by Tetric N-Ceram Bulk group. Without BLV application, there was no significant difference among bacterial adhesion values of groups (p > 0.05). CLSM images showed cell viability in groups. Bulk-fill composites showed higher bacterial adhesion than conventional composite and compomer materials. The surface sealant was found to be highly effective in lowering bacterial adhesion, but not so superior in smoothing the surfaces of restorative materials. So, surface sealants could be used on the restorations of patients with high caries risk.

Tooth colored dental restorative materials: Porosities and surface topography in relation to bacterial adhesion

1982 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjeld Kr. Skjørland ◽  
Arne Hensten-Pettersen ◽  
Dag ørsta-Vik ◽  
Karl-Johan Söderholm
Keyword(s):  
Surface Topography ◽  
Bacterial Adhesion ◽  
Dental Restorative Materials ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Dental Restorative

scholarly journals Esthetic restorative materials and glass ionomer cements: Influence of acidic drink exposure on bacterial adhesion

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (02) ◽  
pp. 204-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Poggio ◽  
Lodovico Vialba ◽  
Riccardo Marchioni ◽  
Marco Colombo ◽  
Giampiero Pietrocola
Keyword(s):  
Bacterial Adhesion ◽  
Soft Drink ◽  
Cylindrical Sample ◽  
Bacterial Suspension ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

ABSTRACT Objective: The purpose of this research was to evaluate and compare bacterial adhesion on five esthetic restorative materials, three glass ionomer cements (GIC), and two GIC with coat. All the materials were considered after acidic drink exposure. Materials and Methods: Thirty cylindrical sample of each of the 10 materials were prepared and then divided into three groups: group 1 (baseline), Group 2 (1 day in acidic soft drink), and Group 3 (7 days in acidic soft drink). Bacterial suspension of Streptococcus mutans was cultured and deposited onto each material, and the adhesion was evaluated through the colony-forming units determination. One-way ANOVA and Bonferroni's post hoc tests were applied to estimate significant differences between the esthetic materials. Results: The highest amount of S. mutans was recorded in Group 3 and the lowest in Group 1 (baseline). In general, the GIC showed bacterial adhesion values higher than the ones related to composites both in Group 2 than in Group 3. Acidic soft drinks lead a time-dependent degradation of restorative materials causing an increase of the surface rugosity. In fact, a general increase in S. mutans cells adhesion to treated samples was observed. Conclusions: The use of acidic soft drink resulted in a degradation of the surface layer of the restorative material with consequent increase of bacterial adhesion. The GIC can be considered a more friendly environment for bacterial adhesion. This is true in particular if acid substances have already deteriorated the surface.

Adhesion of Streptococcus Mutans to Different Restorative Materials

2009 ◽  
Vol 32 (9) ◽  
pp. 671-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Poggio ◽  
Carla R. Arciola ◽  
Federico Rosti ◽  
Andrea Scribante ◽  
Enrica Saino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Streptococcus Mutans ◽  
Bacterial Adhesion ◽  
Oral Bacteria ◽  
Bacterial Suspension ◽  
Colony Forming Units ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Roughness Analysis ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Flowable Composites ◽  
Dental Restorative

Adherence of oral bacteria to the surface of dental restorative materials is considered an important step in the development of secondary caries and periodontal disease. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the adherence of different restorative materials to Streptococcus mutans strain (CCUG35176) in order to ascertain possible differences. The materials tested ranged across different classes including: flowable composites (Gradia Direct LoFlo; Filtek Supreme XT Flowable), anterior composites (Gradia Direct Anterior), universal composites (Filtek Supreme XT), packable composites (Filtek Silorane; Filtek P60), glass-ionomers (Fuji IX Gp Extra; Equia) and a control reference material (Thermanox plastic coverlips). Bacterial suspension was deposited onto each material and the adhesion was evaluated trough the colony forming units (CFUs) determination. Packable silorane-based composite was found to be less adhesive than posterior packable composite P60, flowable composites and glass ionomers. The fluoride of glass ionomers did not prevent the attachment of S. mutans; furthermore, after roughness analysis and SEM investigations, the hypothesis that the difference in bacterial adhesion can be determined by the particular surface chemistry of the material itself as well as by different electrostatic forces between bacteria and restorative surfaces must be given serious consideration.

Does Finishing and Polishing of Restorative Materials Affect Bacterial Adhesion and Biofilm Formation? A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. E37-E52 ◽  
Author(s):  
DAM Dutra ◽  
GKR Pereira ◽  
KZ Kantorski ◽  
LF Valandro ◽  
FB Zanatta
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bacterial Adhesion ◽  
Biofilm Formation ◽  
Surface Characteristics ◽  
Periodontal Inflammation ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
The Impact

SUMMARY Biofilm (bacterial plaque) accumulation on the surface of restorative materials favors the occurrence of secondary caries and periodontal inflammation. Surface characteristics of restorations can be modified by finishing and/or polishing procedures and may affect bacterial adhesion. The aim of this systematic review was to characterize how finishing and polishing methods affect the surface properties of different restorative materials with regard to bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. Searches were carried out in MEDLINE-PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane-CENTRAL, and LILACS databases. From 2882 potential articles found in the initial searches, only 18 met the eligible criteria and were included in this review (12 with in vitro design, four with in situ design, and two clinical trials). However, they presented high heterogeneity regarding materials considered and methodology for evaluating the desired outcome. Risk bias analysis showed that only two studies presented low risk (whereas 11 showed high and five showed medium risk). Thus, only descriptive analyses considering study design, materials, intervention (finishing/polishing), surface characteristics (roughness and surface free energy), and protocol for biofilm formation (bacterial adhesion) could be performed. Some conclusions could be drawn: the impact of roughness on bacterial adhesion seems to be related not to a roughness threshold (as previously believed) but rather to a range, the range of surface roughness among different polishing methods is wide and material dependent, finishing invariably creates a rougher surface and should always be followed by a polishing method, each dental material requires its own treatment modality to obtain and maintain as smooth a surface as possible, and in vitro designs do not seem to be powerful tools to draw relevant conclusions, so in vivo and in situ designs become strongly recommended.

scholarly journals Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to Fiber-Reinforced Filling Composite and Conventional Restorative Materials

2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lippo V.J Lassila ◽  
Sufyan Garoushi ◽  
Johanna Tanner ◽  
Pekka K Vallittu ◽  
Eva Söderling
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Streptococcus Mutans ◽  
Polymer Matrix ◽  
Bacterial Adhesion ◽  
Glass Fibers ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Fiber Reinforced ◽  
Fiber Reinforced Composite ◽  
Reinforced Composite ◽  
Restorative Materials

Objectives. The aim was to investigate the adhesion of Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) to a short glass fibers reinforced semi-IPN polymer matrix composite resin. The effect of surface roughness on adhesion was also studied. For comparison, different commercial restorative materials were also evaluated. Materials and Methods. Experimental composite FC resin was prepared by mixing 22.5 wt% of short E-glass fibers, 22.5 wt% of IPN-resin and 55 wt% of silane treated silica fillers using high speed mixing machine. Three direct composite resins (Z250, Grandio and Nulite), resin-modified glass ionomers (Fuji II LC), amalgam (ANA 2000), fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) (everStick and Ribbond), and pre-fabricated ceramic filling insert (Cerana class 1) were tested in this study. Enamel and dentin were used as controls. The specimens (n=3/group) with or without saliva were incubated in a suspension of S. mutans allowing initial adhesion to occur. For the enumeration of cells on the disc surfaces as colony forming units (CFU) the vials with the microbe samples were thoroughly Vortex-treated and after serial dilutions grown anaerobically for 2 days at +37°C on Mitis salivarius agars (Difco) containing bacitracin. Bacterial adhesion was also evaluated by using scanning electron microscopy. Surface roughness (Ra) of the materials was also determined using a surface profilometer. All results were statistically analyzed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results. Composite FC resin and other commercial restorative materials showed similar adhesion of S. mutans, while adhesion to dentin and enamel was significantly higher (p<0.05). Surface roughness had no effect on bacterial adhesion. Saliva coating significantly decreased the adhesion for all materials (p<0.05). Composite FC resin had a significantly higher Ra value than control groups (p<0.05). Conclusions. Short fiber-reinforced composite with semi-IPN polymer matrix revealed similar S. mutans adhesion than commercial restorative materials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document