Antibacterial Activity and Biofilm Inhibition of New-Generation Hybrid/Fluoride-Releasing Restorative Materials

Abstract

The antibacterial activity, and the effect of the application of additional topical fluoride on the bacterial activity, biofilm formation, and surface roughness of new-generation hybrid/fluoride-releasing materials were investigated. Two hundred and forty specimens were prepared in split Teflon molds (8 × 2 mm) from a resin composite (as negative control: G-aenial A’Chord/GC), Equia Forte HT Fil(GC), Equia Forte HT Fil+Equia Forte Coat, Riva Self-Cure (SDI), Riva Self-Cure+Equia Forte Coat, Zirconomer (Shofu), Beautifil II (Shofu), and Riva Silver (Shofu). Penicillin G,1U was used as positive control. The antibacterial activity was evaluated by the agar diffusion test immediately after the materials set using Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Lactobacillus casei (L. casei), and repeated after application of 0.20% w/w (900 ppm) topical fluoride. The biofilm formation of S. mutans on each material was quantified by crystal violet staining. Surface roughness of the specimens was measured by a profilometer. The data were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis, Dunn’s, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey’s HSD tests (p < 0.05). None of the tested restorative materials showed antibacterial activity and no inhibition zones were observed after treatment of the restoratives with additional topical fluoride. There were significant differences among the groups in terms of biofilm formation (p < 0.005). Equia Forte HT Fil with and without coating showed the lowest, while Riva self-cure without coating and Zirconomer showed the highest biofilm accumulation. None of the new-generation hybrid/fluoride-releasing materials demonstrated antibacterial activity and additional topical fluoride application did not make any change. Biofilm formation of the tested materials differed. All tested materials showed different surface roughness values (p < 0.005). Characteristics and compositions of the materials seemed to be more effective than the surface roughness.

Fluoride release and anti-bacterial activity of different bioactive restorative materials: an in vitro comparative study

“…In recent years, there has been a sharp growth in the restoration of cavities with fluoride-releasing mate rials, which provide anti-cariogenic qualities and prevent the caries-causing bacteria metabolism, enhancing re-mineralization [17].…”

Biological and Physicochemical Characterization of Self-Adhesive Protective Coating Dental Restorative Material after Incorporation of Antibacterial Nanoparticles

“…Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide having antibacterial properties are effective in countering numerous types of dental plaque bacteria including L. acidophilus and S. mutans . The oral biofilm contains variable and complex microbial communities; among these, S. mutans and L. acidophilus have been implicated as the major pathogens in dental caries [ 14 ]. Therefore, S. mutans and L. acidophilus were investigated in the present study.…”

“…Since the dental biofilm contains acid-producing bacteria (e.g., StreptococcuS. mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus), teeth with restorations are susceptible to recurrent caries mainly at the tooth restoration interface, as the bacterial biofilm damages the adhesive interface [ 14 ]. Therefore, the introduction of antibacterial agents into dental restoration is essential to solve the main reason for dental restoration failure (e.g., recurrent caries), which is caused by cariogenic bacteria [ 15 , 16 ].…”

Which whitening toothpaste with different contents is more effective on color and bond strength of enamel?

“…G*Power software (Version 3.1, Heinrich-Heine Dusseldorf University, Dusseldorf, Germany) was used to calculate the power of sample size with a 95% confidence interval, an 85% power, and 0.50 effect size values according to one-way ANOVA-type power analysis. 27 For each group, a minimum of 9 specimens were appropriate. Thus, 10 specimens per group were used.…”