Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on two bioactive cements: an in-vitro study
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Background
Dental restorative materials are recognized as artificial niches that facilitate the adherence and accumulation of oral microorganisms. To mitigate oral diseases and extend the lifespan of restorations, it is advantageous to use dental materials that exhibit low susceptibility to bacterial adhesion.
Objective
To evaluate and compare bacterial adhesion on two bioactive restorative materials, a glass hybrid restorative, and an alkasite with a nanohybrid resin composite as a positive control. The secondary objectives were to compare the surface roughness (SR) of the materials and determine the correlation between the bacterial adhesion and the SR.
Materials and methods
The samples consisted of 33 polished discs of each material: Group A: Tetric
®
N-Ceram (nanohybrid resin composite), Group B: Equia Forte™ HT Fil (glass hybrid restorative) and Group C: Cention N
®
(alkasite).
Streptococcus mutans
cultures were inoculated and after 24-hours of incubation, bacterial adhesion was measured by measuring optical density (OD) and number of colony forming units (CFUs). After 96-hours incubation, the bacterial cell count was determined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). SR was assessed using surface profilometer.
Results
Alkasite had significantly lower OD and CFUs (
p
< 0.001 and
p
= 0.015 respectively). According to the SEM analysis, the glass hybrid restorative had lower mean bacterial cell count with no significant difference between the groups. The nanohybrid composite had the smoothest surface that was significantly lower than the alkasite and glass hybrid restorative (
p
= 0.002). None of the groups demonstrated a correlation between bacterial adhesion and SR.
Conclusion
Alkasite impedes bacterial adhesion better than the glass hybrid restorative and nanohybrid composite, while smoother surfaces are achieved with the nanohybrid composite.
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Title: Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on two bioactive cements: an in-vitro study
Description:
Abstract
Background
Dental restorative materials are recognized as artificial niches that facilitate the adherence and accumulation of oral microorganisms.
To mitigate oral diseases and extend the lifespan of restorations, it is advantageous to use dental materials that exhibit low susceptibility to bacterial adhesion.
Objective
To evaluate and compare bacterial adhesion on two bioactive restorative materials, a glass hybrid restorative, and an alkasite with a nanohybrid resin composite as a positive control.
The secondary objectives were to compare the surface roughness (SR) of the materials and determine the correlation between the bacterial adhesion and the SR.
Materials and methods
The samples consisted of 33 polished discs of each material: Group A: Tetric
®
N-Ceram (nanohybrid resin composite), Group B: Equia Forte™ HT Fil (glass hybrid restorative) and Group C: Cention N
®
(alkasite).
Streptococcus mutans
cultures were inoculated and after 24-hours of incubation, bacterial adhesion was measured by measuring optical density (OD) and number of colony forming units (CFUs).
After 96-hours incubation, the bacterial cell count was determined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
SR was assessed using surface profilometer.
Results
Alkasite had significantly lower OD and CFUs (
p
< 0.
001 and
p
= 0.
015 respectively).
According to the SEM analysis, the glass hybrid restorative had lower mean bacterial cell count with no significant difference between the groups.
The nanohybrid composite had the smoothest surface that was significantly lower than the alkasite and glass hybrid restorative (
p
= 0.
002).
None of the groups demonstrated a correlation between bacterial adhesion and SR.
Conclusion
Alkasite impedes bacterial adhesion better than the glass hybrid restorative and nanohybrid composite, while smoother surfaces are achieved with the nanohybrid composite.
Related Results
Novel phosphate-based cements for clinical applications
Novel phosphate-based cements for clinical applications
This Thesis aims at the development of two novel families of inorganic phosphate cements with suitable characteristics for clinical applications in hard tissue regeneration or repl...
Primerjalna književnost na prelomu tisočletja
Primerjalna književnost na prelomu tisočletja
In a comprehensive and at times critical manner, this volume seeks to shed light on the development of events in Western (i.e., European and North American) comparative literature ...
Isolation And Characterization Of Biosurfactant Producing Bacteria From Different Environmental Soil Samples
Isolation And Characterization Of Biosurfactant Producing Bacteria From Different Environmental Soil Samples
Biosurfactants are natural substances produced by several bacterial and fungal organisms that are amphiphilic and are extracellular (a part of the cell membrane). Biosurfactants ca...
Effect of surface sealant on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of bulk-fill composites
Effect of surface sealant on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of bulk-fill composites
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 co...
Dental Cements
Dental Cements
The manifold uses of dental cements-as (a) luting agents, (b) cavity linings and bases, and (c) restorations for teeth—make them perhaps the most important materials in clinical de...
ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE OF DENTAL LUTING CEMENTS INVESTIGATED BY IMPEDANCE METHODOLOGY RELATED TO THEIR POROSITIES AND SOLUBILITY
ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE OF DENTAL LUTING CEMENTS INVESTIGATED BY IMPEDANCE METHODOLOGY RELATED TO THEIR POROSITIES AND SOLUBILITY
The electrical resistance property of dental cement is one of important physical properties. Most previous studies aimed to investigate the mechanical properties, solubility and es...
Germanium glass polyalkenoate cements for cranioplasty fixation
Germanium glass polyalkenoate cements for cranioplasty fixation
Glass polyalkenoate cements (GPCs) have potential for skeletal cementation. Unfortunately, commercial GPCs all contain and subsequently release aluminum ions, which have been impli...
Germanium glass polyalkenoate cements for cranioplasty fixation
Germanium glass polyalkenoate cements for cranioplasty fixation
Glass polyalkenoate cements (GPCs) have potential for skeletal cementation. Unfortunately, commercial GPCs all contain and subsequently release aluminum ions, which have been impli...

