This study aimed to evaluate the influence of sterilization methods on conventional and bulk-fill resin composites' (BFRCs) surface properties in an attempt to preview bias in laboratory bacterial adhesion tests. Two regular viscosity conventional resin composites [Filtek Z350 XT™ (Z350) and IPS Empress Direct™ (ED)] and two regular viscosity BFRCs [Filtek Bulk Fill™ (FILT) and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill IVA™ (TBF)] were used. The materials were characterized by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), surface roughness (SR), and wettability (W) after sterilization with hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP) and steam sterilization (SS). Nonsterilized samples served as a control group (n = 5). Statistical analysis was performed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc test (p < 0.05). For SR, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups (p > .05). SS method decreased the contact angle for FILT and Z350 (p < .01). The SS promoted more exposition of filler particles, while the HPGP method did not alter the tested materials' morphology. Therefore, sterilization methods affected the resin composites tested selectively. HPGP seems to be the most recommended method to sterilize the tested resin composites before laboratory bacterial adhesion tests.
The aim of this study was to investigate if sterilization methods would promote changes in the selected adhesion‐related surface properties of glass ionomer cements (GICs). Riva self‐cure (RSC) and Riva light‐cure (RLC) GICs were tested. Thirty samples were prepared according to the type of material (RSC and RLC) and sterilization method: hydrogen peroxide gas plasma (HPGP), steam sterilization (SS), and no sterilization (n = 5 per group). A Teflon matrix (5 × 2 mm) was filled with one of the GICs to produce the samples. For the groups with the RLC material, the samples were light cured using a light curing unit for 20 s. After 24 hr, finishing and polishing were performed in all samples and then they were sterilized. Surface roughness, wettability, and micromorphology were accessed using a profilometer, a goniometer, and a scanning electron microscopy, respectively. Data were statistically analyzed through a two‐way ANOVA and Tukey post‐hoc test (p < .05). Both sterilization methods promoted similar roughness values to the nonsterilized samples (p > .05). HPGP decreased contact angle for RSC (p < .01), and SS increased contact angle for RLC (p < .01). Samples subjected to HPGP presented similar surface micromorphology to nonsterilized ones, regardless of the material. SS promoted exposition of smaller filler particles in both materials. Although sterilization methods did not alter surface roughness and wettability, the sterilization methods selectively altered the micromorphology of the materials tested.
Research highlights
This study's main finding suggests that each sterilization method altered the surface of glass ionomers in different ways. Thus, the choice of sterilization methods prior to bacterial adhesion can lead to a bias in antimicrobial studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.