Vol. 5 (03) pp. 1217-1223 DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/3626

ADHESION OF STREPTOCOCCUS MUTANS BIOFILM ON THE SURFACE OF INDIRECT RESIN COMPOSITES RESTORATIONS.

and
  • Lecturer of Microbiology, Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Delta university for Science and Technology, Gamassa, Egypt.
  • Lecturer of Operative Dentistry, Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
18 Downloads 130 Views
Crossref

Download Full Paper (PDF)

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate and compare streptococci mutans adhesion on the surface of indirect resin composites compared to direct. Materials and Methods: A total of forty standardized disk shaped samples of the four tested material were constructed in special mold and cured according manufacturer's instructions and finished and polished with soflex finishing system, then subjected to bacterial biofilm colonization and the adhered bacteria were calculated and, the collected data were subjected to statistical analysis. Results: One way ANOVA showed that there was a significant difference between the tested resin composites, and the post hoc Tukey’s test showed that the lowest bacterial adhesion recorded for SR Nexco and Ceram X one with statistically significant difference compared to Z 250 and Hercuilite classic (p 0.05) Conclusion: Indirect resin composites have lower susceptibility to bacterial adhesion than do direct one in the same context the smaller the filler particle size the lowest the bacterial adhesion.

Keywords

Article Analytics

References

  1. Burke FTJ, Watts DC, Wilson NH, Wilson MA. )1991( Current status and rationale for composite inlays and onlays. Br Dent J;170:269–273
  2. Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF. )1995( Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: three-year clinical results. Br Dent J;179:343–349.
  3. Joanna-C. Todd. )2012( Scientific Documentation SR Nexco Paste, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Research and Development Scientific Service, Bendererstrasse 2, FL – 9494 Schaan, Liechtenstein.
  4. Takatsuka T, Konishi N, Nakabo S, Hashimoto T,Torii Y, Yoshiyama M. )2000( Adhesion in vitro of oralstreptococci to porcelain, composite resin cement and human enamel. Dent Mater J; 19: 363-372.
  5. Kolenbrander PE, London J. )1993( Adhere today, here tomorrow: oral bacterial adherence. J Bacteriol; 175: 3247-3252.
  6. Hansel C, Leyhausen G, Mai UE, Geurtsen W. )1998( Effects of various resin composite (co)monomers and extracts on two caries associated micro-organisms in vitro. J Dent Res; 77: 60-67.
  7. Imazato S, Ebi N, Takahashi Y, Kaneko T, Ebisu S, Russell RR. )2003( Antibacterial activity of bactericideimmobilized filler for resin-based restoratives. Biomaterials; 4: 3605-3609.
  8. Svanberg M, Mj€or IA, Orstavik D. )1990(Mutans Streptococci in plaque from margins of amalgam, composite and glass ionomer restorations. J Dent Res;69:861–864.
  9. Derks A, Katsaros C, Frencken JE, van’t Hof MA, Kuipers- Jagtman AM. )2004( Caries-inhibiting effect of preventive measure during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. A systematic review. Caries Res;38:413–420.
  10. Ahn SJ, Kho HS, Lee SW, Nahm DS.) 2002(Roles of salivary proteins in the adherence of oral Streptococci to various orthodontic brackets. J Dent Res;81:411–415.
  11. Fontana M, Gffel LE, Gregory RL. )1995( Characterization of preparations enriched for Streptococcus mutans fimbriae: salivary immunoglobulin A antibodies in caries-free and caries-active subjects. Clin Diagnolab Immunol; 2: 719-725
  12. Nishihara T, Koseki T. )2004( Microbial etiology of periodontitis. Periodontol 2000; 36: 14-26.
  13. Poortinga AT, Smit J, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. )2001( Electric field induced desorption of bacteria from a conditioning film covered substratum. Biotechnol Bioeng; 76: 395-399.
  14. Larsson K, Glantz PO. )1981( Microbial adhesion to surfaces with different surface charges. Acta Odontol Scand; 39: 79-82.
  15. Poortinga AT, Bos R, Busscher HJ.) 2001(Electrostatic interactions in the adhesion of an ion-penetrable and ion-impenetrable bacterial strain to glass. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces; 20: 105-117.
  16. Weerkamp AH, Uyen HM, Busscher HJ. )1988( Effect of zeta potential and surface energy on bacterial adhesion to uncoated and saliva-coated human enamel and dentin. J Dent Res; 67: 1483-1487.
  17. Pratt-Terpstra IH, Weerkamp AH, Busscher HJ. )1987( Adhesion of oral streptococci from a flowing suspension to uncoated and albumin-coated surfaces. J Gen Microbiol; 13: 3199-3206.
  18. Kolenbrander PE, Andersen RN, Blehert DS, Egland PG, Foster JS, Palmer RJ Jr. )2002(Communication among oral bacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev;66: 486-505
  19. Hanada N, Kuramitsu HK. )1988( Isolation and characterization of the Streptococcus mutans gtfC gene, coding for synthesis of both soluble and insoluble glucans. Infect Immun; 56: 1999-2005.
  20. WASSELL, Robert W.; MCCABE, John F.; WALLS, Angus WG. )1994( Wear characteristics in a two-body wear test. Dental Materials, 10.4: 269-274.?
  21. GEDIK, RÜ?TÜ, et al.)2005( Surface roughness of new microhybrid resin-based composites. The Journal of the American Dental Association, , 136.8: 1106-1112.?
  22. Ahn SJ, Lim BS, Lee SJ. )2010( Surface characteristics of orthodontic adhesives and effects on streptococcal adhesion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop;137:489–495.
  23. Ahn SJ, Lim BS, Lee YK, Nahm DS. )2006( Quantitative determination of adhesion patterns of cariogenic Streptococci to various orthodontic adhesives. Angle Orthod;76:869–875.
  24. Rosenbloom RG, Tinanoff N.)1991(Salivary Streptococcus mutans levels in patients before, during, and after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop;100:35–37.
  25. Artun J, Brobakken BO. )1986( Prevalence of caries and white spots after orthodontic treatment with multibonded appliances. Eur J Orthod;8:229–234.
  26. Ahn SJ, Kho HS, Kim KK, Nahm DS. )2003( Adhesion of oral Streptococci to experimental bracket pellicles from glandular saliva. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop;124:198–205.
  27. Lee SP, Lee SJ, Lim BS, Ahn SJ. )2009(Surface characteristics of orthodontic materials and their effects on adhesion of mutans Streptococci. Angle Orthod; 79:353–360.
  28. DERCHI, Giacomo, et al. )2016(Bacterial adhesion on direct and indirect dental restorative composite resins: An in vitro study on a natural biofilm. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.?
  29. IONESCU, Andrei, et al. )2012(Influence of surface properties of resin?based composites on in vitro Streptococcus mutans biofilm development. European journal of oral sciences, 120.5: 458-465.?
  30. ÇELIK, Çig?dem; ÖZGÜNALTAY, Gül. )2009( Effect of finishing and polishing procedures on surface roughness of tooth-colored materials. Quintessence International, 40.9.?
  31. ERGÜCÜ, Z.; TÜRKÜN, L. S )2007(Surface roughness of novel resin composites polished with one-step systems. Operative Dentistry, 32.2: 185-192.?
  32. ATTAR, Nuray. The effect of finishing and polishing procedures on the surface roughness of composite resin materials. J Contemp Dent Pract, 8.1: 27-35.?
  33. YALCIN, Filiz; KORKMAZ, Yonca; BASEREN, M. )2006(The effect of two different polishing techniques on microleakage of new composites in Class V restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract, 7.5: 18-25.?

How to Cite This Article

Wafaa E. Soliman and Ashraf Ibrahim Ali. (2017); ADHESION OF STREPTOCOCCUS MUTANS BIOFILM ON THE SURFACE OF INDIRECT RESIN COMPOSITES RESTORATIONS., Int. J. of Adv. Res., 5 (03), 1217-1223, ISSN 2320-5407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/3626

Corresponding Author

Wafaa Ezz Elarab Ahmed Soliman
Delta university for science and technology
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.