Evaluation of Novel Anticaries Adhesive in a Secondary Caries Animal Model

Abstract

(1) secondary caries was successfully produced in rats; (2) there was a correlation between the modified Keyes scoring method and micro-CT in the evaluation of the secondary caries; (3) the adhesive containing DMADDM significantly reduced both LD and ML (according to micro-CT), and also lowered the scores (based on the modified Keyes scoring method). This suggests that the novel DMADDM adhesive could perform an anticaries function in vivo via the secondary caries animal model which was also developed and testified in research. Secondary caries is one of the major reasons leading to the failure of caries restoration treatment. As a solution, anticaries adhesives perform well in biofilm inhibition in vitro. However, the lack of secondary caries animal models limits the evaluation of anticaries adhesives in vivo. Secondary caries is one of the main reasons for restoration failure with a heavy economic burden [Sakaguchi, 2005;Kasraei et al., 2017]. While many factors facilitate the development of secondary caries, oral bacteria and acid production are the initiators of dental caries [Mjor Keywords Antibacterial material · Bonding system · Dimethylaminododecyl methacrylate · Keyes animal model · Micro-CT · Tooth restoration AbstractWe investigated the anticaries properties of an adhesive containing dimethylaminododecyl methacrylate (DMADDM) in vivo via a secondary caries animal model. Cavities were prepared in the maxillary first molars of Wistar rats. DMADDM-containing adhesives were applied on one side and commercial adhesives on the opposite side as a control. After a 3-week feeding period to induce secondary caries, the molars were harvested for the evaluation of the secondary caries. Lesion depth (LD) and mineral loss (ML) were measured via a micro-CT method, and a modified Keyes scoring method yielded scores for the caries lesions. Statistical analysis was divided into 2 parts: a correlation analysis between 2 evaluations with one-way ANOVA and a least-significant differences (LSD) test, and an evaluation of anticaries adhesives with a paired samples t test. The results showed that:

Influence of Dental Prosthesis and Restorative Materials Interface on Oral Biofilms

“…Meanwhile, the changed morphology and increased roughness can enhance the initial bacterial attachment and oral biofilm formation [ 17 ]. To demonstrate the actual effects on biofilm formation of dental material in a pragmatic way, the study models evolved consistently, from the previous water aging model to a biological aging model, from a primary caries animal model to a secondary caries animal model, and from in vitro to the in situ model used nowadays [ 73 , 74 , 75 ].…”

S-glutathionylation proteome profiling reveals a crucial role of a thioredoxin-like protein in interspecies competition and cariogenecity of Streptococcus mutans

“…Specific-pathogen-free Spragur Dawley (SD) rats (Chengdu Dossy Experimental Animals Co., Ltd, China) were obtained at the age of three weeks and randomly assigned into three groups of five animals. All rats were provided with ampicillin (1 g/kg) in their drinking water for the first three days and then normal sterile water for another day to elute the antibiotic [29]. Then, the of S. mutans UA159 solution (10 9 CFU/mL, 0.3 mL) or the mutant strains were inoculated for three consecutive days.…”

Adhesive systems modified with antimicrobial agents: a literature review

“…37,38 The basic components of the adhesive system are: conditioning agent, primer and adhesive, in addition to photo initiators, polymerization inhibitors, and inorganic fillers. 33 They can also be modified with antimicrobial agents, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][15][16][17][18][19][20]22,24,26,[28][29][30][31][39][40][41][42][43][44] mineralizing agents, 2,3,16,22,26,30,45 protein repellent, 2 inhibitors of metalloproteinases, 6,46,47 and even inti-inflammatory agents. 5 The understanding of the function of each system component and their careful use, respecting their indications, will be essential for adhesion success.…”

“…Secondary caries leads to restoration failure. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] In the oral environment, the restorative composite u ndergoe s poly mer i zat ion sh r i n k age, 9,11-1 4 receives masticatory loads, 10,15 and accumulates biofilm; 8,16 being, therefore, susceptible to marginal failure, 10,12,17,18 adhesive interface degradation, 6,8,10,15,17 and micro-infiltration. 1,10,13,15,19 Likewise, residual bacteria may remain after cavity preparation, thus inducing the formation of recurrent caries.…”