Adsorption of parotid saliva proteins and adhesion of Streptococcus mutans ATCC 21752 to dental fiber‐reinforced composites

Abstract

The use of fiber-reinforced composites (FRC) in dentistry has increased during recent years. In marginal areas of crowns and removable partial dentures the fibers may become exposed and come into contact with oral tissues, saliva, and microbes. To date, few articles have been published on oral microbial adhesion to FRCs. The aim of this study was to compare different FRCs, their components, and conventional restorative materials with respect to S. mutans ATCC 21752 adhesion and adsorption of specific S. mutans binding proteins. Surface roughness of the materials was also determined. Four different FRCs, a restorative composite, and a high-leucite ceramic material were studied. Polyethylene FRC was found to be significantly rougher than all other materials. Aramid FRC also showed higher surface roughness in comparison with all materials but polyethylene FRC. Without a saliva pellicle, adhesion of S. mutans coincided with surface roughness and polyethylene and aramid FRC promoted S. mutans adhesion better than the other smoother materials. In the presence of salivary pellicle, ceramic and polyethylene FRC bound more bacteria than the other materials studied. Higher quantities of S. mutans binding proteins in the pellicles may in part account for the higher S. mutans adhesion to saliva-coated ceramic and polyethylene FRC.

Is secondary caries with composites a material-based problem?

“…Yet, the composition and ultrastructure of the salivary pellicle also seems to be dependent on the material's chemistry [61,138,140]. Numerous studies suggest that saliva coating generally decreases the bacterial adhesion to teeth and restorative materials [125,[142][143][144][145], although one study found the opposite [146]. In addition, saliva coating reduces the differences in bacterial adhesion to different materials [145,147] and modifies certain properties of the pure material such as surface-free energy and surface charge [118,144].…”

Effect of Different Finishing and Polishing Agents on the Surface Roughness of Cast Pure Titanium

“…The shortcomings of a rough surface were demonstrated in an in vivo study by Quirynen et al 10 They concluded that the surface roughness of implant-supported prostheses significantly increased the adhesion of supragingival bacterial plaque, increasing the incidence of dental caries, gingivitis, and periodontal disease. [11][12][13][14][15] Finishing and polishing cast titanium are difficult procedures [14][15][16] because of high chemical reactivity, high strength, and low modulus of elasticity. Finishing and polishing affect the mechanical properties of the metal.…”

Bacterial Strains Isolated from Different Niches Can Exhibit Different Patterns of Adhesion to Substrata

“…Many recent studies still use slight rinsing or dipping to remove loosely adhering bacteria, without the realization that all adhering organisms can be regarded as loosely adhering if the rinsing forces applied are sufficiently high (6,10). The literature is therefore fouled with studies confusing the definitions of two terms: adhesion and retention (7).…”