Evaluation of the Antibacterial Effect of Bioactive Dental Restorative Materials: in vitro Study.
Albannawi, Zainab.
2016
-
Abstract: ABSTRACT Aims: Due to their remarkable good sealing ability and compatibility, bioactive dental restorative materials possess promising characteristics that can assist in reducing secondary caries incidence. Another characteristic that would be beneficial for these materials in promoting protection against secondary caries formation is the antibacterial property. Therefore, the purpose ... read moreof this study was to evaluate the antibacterial properties of two bioactive dental restorative materials: Theracal LC and Activa Bioactive Restorative and compare them with three conventional restorative materials. Methods: Direct contact test with Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) was used to evaluate the antibacterial properties of the dental materials. Samples (4 mm X 4 mm diameter) were made from each material and placed in a well of the 24-well plate along with 500 l of a solution containing 1 x 105 CFU/ml of S. mutans. Chlorhexidine was used as a positive control whereas no addition was used as a negative control. The plate was incubated for 24 hours at 37C. S. mutans growth was evaluated by measuring the optical density at 590 nm. Results: The results showed that both bioactive and conventional dental restorative materials possess weak antibacterial effects. The highest median of inhibition was reported for chlorhexidine (96.28 %), followed by glass ionomer cement (GIC) (41.89 %). The lowest median of inhibition was reported for composite resin (6.41 %). These results indicate that GIC had higher antibacterial effects in comparison with the other bioactive and conventional materials. Kruskal-Wallis reported a p-value of 0.007, indicating a significant difference between the antibacterial effects of the materials. Pairwise multiple comparisons with an adjusted p-value of 0.005 were done with Man-Whitney U. A p-value of 0.003 was reported for the comparison between GIC and Activa Bioactive materials. Conclusion: The bioactive and conventional dental restorative materials tested in this study possess weak antibacterial effects. GIC showed the highest antibacterial effect among the materials tested while composite showed the weakest effect. Future studies should investigate the antibacterial effects of the bioactive dental materials in vivo in order to evaluate their interaction with bacterial species involved in dental caries, and other oral environmental factors such as saliva and pH.
Thesis (M.S.)--Tufts University, 2016.
Submitted to the School of Medicine.
Advisor: Driss Zoukhri.
Committee: Tofool Alghanem, Sarah Pagni, and Gerard Kugel.
Keyword: Dentistry.read less - ID:
- 9019sd976
- Component ID:
- tufts:20194
- To Cite:
- TARC Citation Guide EndNote
