Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on two bioactive cements: an in-vitro study

被引:0
|
作者
Dey, Pallabi [1 ]
Suprabha, Baranya Shrikrishna [1 ]
Suman, Ethel [2 ]
Natarajan, Srikant [3 ]
Shenoy, Ramya [4 ]
Rao, Arathi [1 ]
机构
[1] Manipal Acad Higher Educ, Manipal Coll Dent Sci Mangalore, Dept Pediat & Prevent Dent, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
[2] Manipal Acad Higher Educ, Kasturba Med Coll Mangalore, Dept Microbiol, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
[3] Manipal Acad Higher Educ, Manipal Coll Dent Sci Mangalore, Dept Oral Pathol & Microbiol, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
[4] Manipal Acad Higher Educ, Manipal Coll Dent Sci Mangalore, Dept Publ Hlth Dent, Manipal 576104, Karnataka, India
来源
BMC ORAL HEALTH | 2024年 / 24卷 / 01期
关键词
Biofilm; Bacterial adhesion; Streptococcus mutans; Composite resins; Glass Ionomer cement; RESTORATIVE MATERIALS; GLASS-IONOMER; STREPTOCOCCUS-MUTANS; BIOFILM FORMATION; FLUORIDE RELEASE;
D O I
10.1186/s12903-024-05083-y
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
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 (R) N-Ceram (nanohybrid resin composite), Group B: Equia ForteT HT Fil (glass hybrid restorative) and Group C: Cention N (R) (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.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A Comparative Evaluation of Surface Roughness of Ceramics after Immersion in Different Oral Rinses: An In-vitro Study
    Sankeshwari, Banashree
    Passanha, Divya
    Pattanshetti, Channaveer
    Adaki, Raghavendra
    Huddar, Dayanand
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2023, 17 (07) : ZC58 - ZC61
  • [2] Assessment of Surface Roughness of Teflon Archwires Immersed in Mouthwashes (An In-vitro Comparative Study)
    Abdulqader, Mena Hasan
    Al-joubori, Sami Kadhum
    JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCIENCE, 2022, 10 (02): : 662 - 668
  • [3] In vitro effect of anodization on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion to titanium abutments
    Golalipour, Shaghayegh
    Jalalian, Ezatollah
    Koosha, Sara
    Khorshidi, Sotude
    Torshabi, Maryam
    Sayyari, Maryam
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2025, 133 (01): : 291e1 - 291e8
  • [4] Surface characteristics and bacterial adhesion of endodontic cements
    Andreas Koutroulis
    Håkon Valen
    Dag Ørstavik
    Vasileios Kapralos
    Josette Camilleri
    Pia Titterud Sunde
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2022, 26 : 6995 - 7009
  • [5] Surface characteristics and bacterial adhesion of endodontic cements
    Koutroulis, Andreas
    Valen, Hakon
    Orstavik, Dag
    Kapralos, Vasileios
    Camilleri, Josette
    Sunde, Pia Titterud
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2022, 26 (12) : 6995 - 7009
  • [6] Comparative Evaluation of Flexural Strength and Surface Roughness of Three Different Commercially Available Provisional Restorative Materials: An In-vitro Study
    Rajput, Rashmi
    Hasti, Anurag
    Choudhary, Ashish
    Duggal, Surabhi
    Ali, Sheeba
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2022, 16 (01) : ZC8 - ZC12
  • [7] Impact of physical decontamination methods on zirconia implant surface and subsequent bacterial adhesion: An in-vitro study
    Tan, Nathan Chiang Ping
    Miller, Catherine M.
    Antunes, Elsa
    Sharma, Dileep
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DENTAL RESEARCH, 2022, 8 (01): : 313 - 321
  • [8] Comparative Evaluation of Surface Roughness and Colour Stability of Four Different Composite Resins after Application of Desensitising Agents: An In-vitro Study
    Gupta, Simran Rakeshkumar
    Makade, Chetana
    Shenoi, Pratima
    Gunwal, Mohit
    Burad, Pratik
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2024, 18 (09) : ZC06 - ZC10
  • [9] Effects of surface roughness and texture on the bacterial adhesion on the bearing surface of bio-ceramic joint implants: An in vitro study
    Lu, Ange
    Gao, Yan
    Jin, Tan
    Luo, Xichun
    Zeng, Quanren
    Shang, Zhentao
    CERAMICS INTERNATIONAL, 2020, 46 (05) : 6550 - 6559
  • [10] In Vitro Evaluation of the Surface Roughness of Glass Ionomer Cements Used in the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment
    Alves Filho, Ary de Oliveira
    Rocha, Rachel de Oliveira
    de Benedetto Mascaro, Monique Saveriano
    Pettorossi Imparato, Jose Carlos
    Raggio, Daniela Procida
    PESQUISA BRASILEIRA EM ODONTOPEDIATRIA E CLINICA INTEGRADA, 2009, 9 (02): : 229 - 233