Evaluation of Surface Roughness and &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;Streptococcus mutans&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; Adhesion to Bulk-Fill Resin Composites Polished with Different Systems

Soliman, Wafaa E.; Ali, Ashraf I.; Elkhatib, Walid F.

doi:10.4236/aim.2019.91007

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…6 It is therefore evident that S. mutans would prefer to accumulate on rougher dental surfaces than on polished ones. 7,9 This result pertains to all tested materials except for the Beautifil-Bulk group, which showed average roughness values but the highest bacterial adhesion in both cultivation and CLSM counts. Beautifil-Bulk is a giomer bulk-fill composite with a high silicate glass ratio and ionic (S-PRG) fillers.…”

Section: S481mentioning

confidence: 69%

“…Yet, a few studies have been published with various methods of in vitro design. 7,19,20 In the present study, surface sealant was applied to various bulk-fill composites to investigate the effect on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion. According to the literature, surface-coating materials, such as sealants and glaze materials, are beneficial not only for covering irregularities and inhibiting marginal microleakage but also for lowering bacterial adhesion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 These types of composites have more translucent matrices, different photoinitiators, and smaller fillers. 4 Many studies have evaluated the mechanical, 5 physical, 6 and biological properties of bulk-fill composites, 3 but only one study 7 has evaluated bacterial adhesion.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effect of surface sealant on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of bulk-fill composites

Ozan

Eren

Vatansever

et al. 2021

Polymers and Polymer Composites

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surface sealants are reported to ensure surface smoothness and improve the surface quality of composite restorations. These sealants should also reduce the bacterial adhesion on composite surfaces however, there is not much information regarding their performance on bulk-fill composite materials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface sealant application on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of various restorative materials. Disc-shaped samples were prepared from a compomer, a conventional composite and three bulk-fill composites. Specimens of each group were divided into two groups (n = 9): with/without surface sealant (Biscover LV, [BLV]). Surface roughness values were examined by profilometry and two samples of each group were examined for bacterial adhesion on a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Bacterial counts were calculated by both broth cultivation and microscopic images. Results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni/Dunn tests. Following the BLV application, there was a decrease in the surface roughness values of all groups however, only Tetric N-Ceram Bulk and Beautifil-Bulk groups showed significantly smoother surfaces (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences among material groups without BLV application. Evaluating bacterial adhesion after BLV application, conventional composite had the lowest values among all followed by the compomer group. Beautifil-Bulk had significantly the highest bacterial adhesion (p < 0.05), followed by Tetric N-Ceram Bulk group. Without BLV application, there was no significant difference among bacterial adhesion values of groups (p > 0.05). CLSM images showed cell viability in groups. Bulk-fill composites showed higher bacterial adhesion than conventional composite and compomer materials. The surface sealant was found to be highly effective in lowering bacterial adhesion, but not so superior in smoothing the surfaces of restorative materials. So, surface sealants could be used on the restorations of patients with high caries risk.

show abstract

Section: S481mentioning

confidence: 69%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of surface sealant on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of bulk-fill composites

Ozan

Eren

Vatansever

et al. 2021

Polymers and Polymer Composites

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, Soliman et al in 2019 evaluated the influence of surface roughness on S. mutans adherence to bulk-fill materials treated using different polishing systems [37]. One of the materials, Filtek Bulk Fill, was also tested in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…The same issue can be found when considering bulk-fill materials. Two studies suggest that surface roughness significantly affects bacterial adherence and biofilm formation [27,37], while most show no effect of this parameter on microbial colonization [13,25,26,28,38]. In particular, Somacal et al in 2020 evaluated the effect of pH cycling and simulated toothbrushing on the surface roughness and 24 h-biofilm formation (not adherence) of some bulk-fill materials [25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Curing Time on the Microbiological Behavior of Bulk-Fill Nanohybrid Resin Composites

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the influence of curing time on surface characteristics and microbiological behavior of three bulk-fill resin-based composites (RBCs). Materials were light-cured for either 10 s or 80 s, then finished using a standard clinical procedure. They were characterized by surface morphology (SEM), surface elemental composition (EDS), surface roughness (SR), and surface free energy (SFE). Microbiological behavior was assessed as S. mutans adherence (2 h) and biofilm formation (24 h) using a continuous-flow bioreactor. Statistical analysis included a two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). Materials differed substantially as filler shape, dimension, elemental composition and resin matrix composition. Significant differences between materials were found for SR, SFE, and microbiological behavior. Such differences were less pronounced or disappeared after prolonged photocuring. The latter yielded significantly lower adherence and biofilm formation on all tested materials, similar to conventional RBCs. Improved photoinitiators and UDMA-based resin matrix composition may explain these results. No correlation between surface characteristics and microbiological behavior can explain the similar microbiological behavior of bulk-fill materials after prolonged photocuring. This different performance of bulk-fill materials compared with conventional RBCs, where surface characteristics, especially surface chemistry, influence microbiological behavior, may have important implications for secondary caries occurrence and restoration longevity.

show abstract

The effect of nano silver fluoride, self-assembling peptide and sodium fluoride varnish on salivary cariogenic bacteria: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Atteya,

Amer,

Saleh

et al. 2024

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To compare the antibacterial effect of Nanosilver Fluoride varnish (NSF) varnish, P11-4 and Sodium Fluoride (NaF) varnish against salivary Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Lactobacilli. Methods 66 patients aged 10–24 years old were randomly assigned to receive single application of NSF, P11-4 or NaF varnish. Baseline unstimulated saliva samples were collected before the agents were applied and S.mutans and Lactobacilli colony forming units (CFU) were counted. After one, three and six months, microbiological samples were re-assessed. Groups were compared at each time point and changes across time were assessed. Multivariable linear regression compared the effect of P11-4 and NSF to NaF on salivary S. mutans and Lactobacilli log count at various follow up periods. Results There was a significant difference in salivary S. mutans log count after 1 month between P11-4 (B= -1.29, p = 0.049) and NaF but not at other time points nor between NSF and NaF at any time point. The significant reduction in bacterial counts lasted up to one month in all groups, to three months after using P11-4 and NaF and returned to baseline values after six months. Conclusion In general, the antimicrobial effect of P11-4 and NSF on salivary S. mutans and Lactobacilli was not significantly different from NaF varnish. P11-4 induced greater reduction more quickly than the two other agents and NSF antibacterial effect was lost after one month. Clinical relevance NSF varnish and P11-4 have antimicrobial activity that does not significantly differ from NaF by 3 months. P11-4 has the greatest antibacterial effect after one month with sustained effect till 3 months. The antibacterial effect of NSF lasts for one month. NaF remains effective till 3 months. Trial Registration This trial was prospectively registered on the clinicaltrials.gov registry with ID: NCT04929509 on 18/6/2021.

show abstract

Evaluation of Surface Roughness and <i>Streptococcus mutans</i> Adhesion to Bulk-Fill Resin Composites Polished with Different Systems

Cited by 5 publications

References 43 publications

Effect of surface sealant on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of bulk-fill composites

Effect of surface sealant on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of bulk-fill composites

Influence of Curing Time on the Microbiological Behavior of Bulk-Fill Nanohybrid Resin Composites

The effect of nano silver fluoride, self-assembling peptide and sodium fluoride varnish on salivary cariogenic bacteria: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About