Quantitative analysis of S. mutans and S. sobrinus cultivated independently and adhered to polished orthodontic composite resins

Abstract

In Orthodontics, fixed appliances placed in the oral cavity are colonized by microorganisms.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to quantitatively determine the independent bacterial colonization of S. mutans and S. sobrinus in orthodontic composite resins. Material and methodsSeven orthodontic composite adhesives for bonding brackets were selected and classified into 14 groups; (GIm, GIs) Enlight, (GIIm, GIIs) Grengloo, (GIIIm, GIIIs) Kurasper F, (GIVm, GIVs) BeautyOrtho Bond, (GVm, GVs) Transbond CC, (GVIm, GVIs) Turbo Bond II, (GVIIm, GVIIs) Blugloo. 60 blocks of 4x4x1 mm of each orthodontic composite resin were made (total 420 blocks), and gently polished with sand-paper and ultrasonically cleaned. S. mutans and S. sobrinus were independently cultivated. For the quantitative analysis, a radioactive marker was used to codify the bacteria (3H) adhered to the surface of the materials. The blocks were submerged in a solution with microorganisms previously radiolabeled and separated (210 blocks for S. mutans and 210 blocks for S. sobrinus) for 2 hours at 37ºC. Next, the blocks were placed in a combustion system, to capture the residues and measure the radiation. The statistical analysis was calculated with the ANOVA test (Sheffè post-hoc). ResultsSignificant differences of bacterial adhesion were found amongst the groups. In the GIm and GIs the significant lowest scores for both microorganisms were shown; in contrast, the values of GVII for both bacteria were significantly the highest. ConclusionsThis study showed that the orthodontic composite resin evaluated in the GIm and GIs, obtained the lowest adherence of S. mutans and S. sobrinus, which may reduce the enamel demineralization and the risk of white spot lesion formation.

Self-ligating versus conventional metallic brackets on Streptococcus mutans retention: A systematic review

“…Currently, adhesives that promote less accumulation are available and indicated for daily clinical use. [9] Composites are often discussed in the face of their roughness (size of their particles). However, the composite surface area exposed in the oral environment plays a more significant role for biofilm accumulation.…”

“…[8] Similarly, composites were developed to induce less biofilm accumulation around the bracket bonding region, decreasing the potential risk of cavitation. [2,9] On the other hand, the correct application of composites (without excess) depends on the clinician.…”

Microstructural Features of Current Resin Composite Materials

“…Leachable components from conventional materials include the actual monomers and some of their degradation products, such as triethylene glycol and bishydroxypropoxy-phenyl propane [69,70]. These products have been demonstrated to regulate bacterial adhesion and colonization [71,72], as well as to pose potential toxicity concerns, especially when used in dental adhesives [72][73][74][75]. Several direct restorative materials are in fact conducive of biofilm colonization, and therefore, antimicrobial composites have also been proposed [76,77].…”

Impact of dental cement on the peri‐implant biofilm‐microbial comparison of two different cements in an in vivo observational study

“…[10][11][12] Other publications describe cementation protocols minimizing the risk of submucosal excess cement and recommend that during cementation the suprastructures should only partly, not completely, be filled with cement. [16][17][18] Cements on a methacrylate basis seem to be more prone to it than cements on a zinc oxide eugenol basis. 13,14 However, none of these protocols will eliminate the risk completely.…”

“…15 The bacterial colonization of luting cements was confirmed in several in vitro studies. [16][17][18] Cements on a methacrylate basis seem to be more prone to it than cements on a zinc oxide eugenol basis. 5,19 Suprastructures that were fixed on implants with a methacrylatebased cement lead to an increased bleeding on probing, suppuration, and peri-implant bone loss.…”