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
  • [21] BACTERIAL ADHERENCE TO BIOINERT AND BIOACTIVE MATERIALS STUDIED IN-VITRO
    OGA, M
    ARIZONO, T
    SUGIOKA, Y
    ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA SCANDINAVICA, 1993, 64 (03): : 273 - 276
  • [22] A comparative evaluation of the in vitro hemocompatibility of orthopaedic cements
    Hoglund, A. U.
    Sanchez, J.
    Persson, T.
    Uhlin, T.
    Engqvist, H.
    Bjorklund, K.
    Larsson, R.
    TISSUE ENGINEERING, 2007, 13 (06): : 1380 - 1380
  • [23] Comparative Evaluation of Surface Roughness of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer and Glass Hybrid Restorative Materials Simulated by Tooth Brushing: An in-Vitro Study
    Komandla, Divya Rao
    Acharya, Shashi Rashmi
    Pentapati, Kalyana Chakravarthy
    PESQUISA BRASILEIRA EM ODONTOPEDIATRIA E CLINICA INTEGRADA, 2021, 21
  • [24] Radiopacity evaluation of different glass ionomer cements: an in-vitro and in-vivo study
    Antunes Santos, Ana M.
    Goncalves, Flavia
    Borges Albanesi, Rafael
    Sandoval, Mario S.
    Procida Raggio, Daniela
    Volpi Mello-Moura, Anna C.
    CHIRURGIA-ITALY, 2019, 32 (06): : 306 - 312
  • [25] Influence of Surface Roughness, Nanostructure, and Wetting on Bacterial Adhesion
    Mu, Minchen
    Liu, Shuhao
    DeFlorio, William
    Hao, Li
    Wang, Xunhao
    Salazar, Karla Solis
    Taylor, Matthew
    Castillo, Alejandro
    Cisneros-Zevallos, Luis
    Oh, Jun Kyun
    Min, Younjin
    Akbulut, Mustafa
    LANGMUIR, 2023, 39 (15) : 5426 - 5439
  • [26] Comparative in-vitro microscopic evaluation of vertical marginal discrepancy, microhardness, and surface roughness of nickel–chromium in new and recast alloy
    Gotam Das
    Saurabh chaturvedi
    Talib Amin Naqash
    Muhammad Waqar Hussain
    Shahabe Saquib
    Ghazala Suleman
    Abdulelah Sameer Sindi
    Shabina Shafi
    Rania A. Sharif
    Scientific Reports, 13 (1)
  • [27] In vitro comparison of root surface roughness and bacterial adhesion following treatment with three different instruments
    Haroon, Farah
    Gregory, Richard L.
    Hara, Anderson
    Blanchard, Steven B.
    Hamada, Yusuke
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 2022, 93 (05) : 83 - 91
  • [28] Comparative Evaluation on the Effects of Three Pediatric Syrups on Microhardness, Roughness and Staining of the Primary Teeth Enamel: An In-Vitro Study
    Mukundan, Divya
    Vignesh, R.
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 15 (07)
  • [29] Bioactive Glass: An In-Vitro Comparative Study of Doping with Nanoscale Copper and Silver Particles
    Goh, Yi-Fan
    Alshemary, Ammar Z.
    Akram, Muhammad
    Kadir, Mohammed Rafiq Abdul
    Hussain, Rafaqat
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED GLASS SCIENCE, 2014, 5 (03) : 255 - 266
  • [30] Evaluation of colour change and surface roughness of two resin-based composites when exposed to beverages commonly used by children: an in-vitro study
    Elwardani, G.
    Sharaf, A. A.
    Mahmoud, A.
    EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, 2019, 20 (03) : 267 - 276