In vitro evaluation of caries inhibition promoted by self‐etching adhesive systems containing antibacterial agents

Abstract

This study evaluated the cariostatic effect of antibacterial self-etching adhesive systems, by means of an in vitro bacterial caries model. Seventy-five prepared bovine slabs were randomly divided into groups (n=15): (1) unbonded composite, no carious challenge (UNB-NC); (2) unbonded composite, carious challenge (UNB-C); (3) Clearfil SE Bond, no antibacterial agent (CSE); (4) Protect Bond, containing MDPB and fluoride (PB); and (5) Reactmer Bond, fluoride-releasing (RB). All preparations were restored with Filtek Z-250. Groups (2)-(5) were submitted to a medium containing Streptococcus mutans (ATCC-- 25175) for 5 days, and Group (1) was kept in a noninoculated medium. Insoluble polysaccharides present in tooth biofilms were quantified, Knoop hardness (KHN) was measured on the enamel adjacent to restorations, and standard 35-mm polarized light photomicrographs were taken as illustrations. Polysaccharide and Knoop hardness results were analyzed with the use of ANOVA, with a split-split-plot statistical design for KHN. Except for Group (1), all groups showed similar caries formation. Biofilm over PB restorations showed the smallest amounts of polysaccharides (14.37 microg/mg), and CSE showed the highest amounts (20.87 microg/mg). All self-etching systems tested were unable to inhibit secondary caries in a bacterial model simulating a high caries challenge, even though there was reduced glucan synthesis provided by the adhesive system containing MDPB and fluoride.

Antibacterial activity of eight dentine bonding systems

“…By contrast, Clearfil Protect Bond was found to exhibited the greatest effective antibacterial activity against oral streptococci, promoting inhibition zones significantly higher than those associated with 0.12% chlorhexidine for S. cricetus and S. oralis [21]. This statement is broadly in agreement with the present study (however the difference was not statistically significant) and with other investigations [19,22,23]. In our studies, three bonding agents (Heliobond/Syntac Classic, Clearfil Protect Bond and Optibond FL) exhibited no antibacterial activity, which could be due to their high pH value and lack of monomer.…”

Antibacterial Activity of Various Self-etching Adhesive Systems Against Oral Streptococci

“…The other self-etching adhesive systems presented bacterial inhibition for 24 or 48 hours. Lobo and others 31 evaluated the cariostatic effects of three adhesive systems by the artificial caries development method using a microbiological model and they found no cariostatic effect, even though there was reduced glucan synthesis provided by the adhesive system containing Clearfil Protect Bond. The choice of an adhesive system for patients with high caries risk should take into consideration the prevention of secondary caries reached by inhibition of residual bacterial growth in the cavity and prevention of invasion through gaps between the composite restoration and cavity walls.…”

A New in vitro Model to Study the Relationship of Gap Size and Secondary Caries

“…They often utilized conventional methods of cavity preparation and restorations before incubating tooth specimens with chemical solutions or bacterial cultures [Kidd, 1976;Gilmour et al, 1990;Donly and Gomez, 1994;Sepet et al, 1995;Dionysopoulos et al, 1996;Fontana et al, 1996a;Matharu et al, 2001;Lobo et al, 2005;Seemann et al, 2005;Borczyk et al, 2006]. The in vitro model developed for this study provided further standardization of the gap size and specimens (i.e.…”