Volume 2, Issue 2 (Journal of Research in Dental & Maxillofacial Sciences spring 2017)                   J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2017, 2(2): 23-28 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

kazeroonizadeh N, Kazemian M, Mirzakoochaki brojen P. An In-Vitro Study of the Antibacterial Efficacy of Cavity Liners Against Streptococcus Mutans and Lactobacillus Casei . J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci. 2017; 2 (2) :23-28
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-156-en.html
1- Postgraduate student, Department of operative dentistry, faculty of dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan ) branch, Islamic Azad university, Isfahan , Iran
2- Assistant professor, Operative dentistry Dept, faculty of dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan ) branch, Islamic Azad university, Isfahan , Iran
3- Assistant professor, Operative dentistry Dept, faculty of dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan ) branch, Islamic Azad university, Isfahan , Iran , mirzakouchaki@gmail.com
Abstract:   (2664 Views)

Background and aim: The main factor that influences the durability of dental restorations is secondary caries. Antibacterial activity of dental materials is important from the clinical aspect, as it might inhibit recurrent caries. The aim of the present study was to compare the antibacterial activity of four fluoride-releasing dental cavity liners against Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Lactobacillus casei (L. casei).
Materials and methods: In this experimental in-vitro study, the agar diffusion test was used to compare the antibacterial efficacy of four dental cavity liners against S. mutans and L. casei. Indicator strains of S. mutans (ATCC35668) and L. casei (ATCC393) were obtained in the form of lyophilized culture. They were grown separately in 15 ml of Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) agar at 37 °C for 48 hours. Antibacterial activities of Ionobond (VOCO), Ionoseal (VOCO), Ionosit (DMG), and Vitrebond (3M) dental cavity liners were evaluated at 24 and 48 hours and at 7 days by measuring the diameter of the inhibition zone in millimeters (mm). Data were collected and analyzed using the repeated measure ANOVA and T-test. The level of significance was set at p<0.05.
Results: The antibacterial efficacy of the four studied dental cavity liners differed at different time intervals (p<0.001), but there were no statically significant differences in the antibacterial activity against the two bacteria types (p=0.342), or between the four types of dental cavity liners (p=0.07).
Conclusion: According to the results of the present research, the antibacterial activities of Ionobond, Ionoseal, Ionosit and Vitrebond dental cavity liners were not significantly different and decreased over time.

Full-Text [PDF 355 kb]   (1142 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (330 Views)  
Type of Study: Original article |

References
1. Vermeersch G, Leloup G, Delmée M, Vreven J. Antibacterial activity of glass-ionomer cements, compomers and resin composites: relationship between acidity and material setting phase. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32(5):368-74.
2. Marsh PD. Dental plaque as a biofilm and a microbial community - implications for health and disease. BMC Oral Health 2006;6 Suppl 1:S14.
3. Daugela P, Oziunas R, Zekonis G. Antibacterial potential of contemporary dental luting cements. Stomatologija 2008;10(1):16-21.
4. Featherstone JD. The caries balance:The basis for caries management by risk assessment. Oral health Prev Dent 2004;2(1):259-64.
5. American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Professionally applied topical fluoride: Evidenced-baced clinical recommendations. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137(8):1151-9.
6. luczaj-Cepowicz E, Marczuk-Kolada G, Zalewska A, Pawińska M, Leszczyńska K. Antibacterial activity of selected glass ionomer cements. Postepy Hig Med Dosw (Online) 2014;68:23-8.
7. Seppa L, Korhonen A, Nutinnen A. Inhibitory effect on S.mutans by fluoride- treated conventional and resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements. Eur J Oral Sci 1995;103(3):182-5.
8. Schwendicke F, Tu YK, Hsu LY, Göstemeyer G. Antibacterial effects of cavity lining: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Dent 2015;43(11):1298-307.
9. Mousavinasab SM, Meyers J. Fluoride release by glass ionomer cements, compomer and giomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2009;6(2):75-81.
10. Daugela P, Oziunas R, Zekonis G. Antibacterial potential of contemporary dental luting cements. Stomatologija 2008;10(1):16-21.
11. Prasad MP, Maradia MA. Antibacterial activity of Conventional and Modified Glass Ionomer Cement against Streptococcus mutans. J Appl Biotech 2014:2(3):17-20.
12. Loyola-Rodriguez JP, Garcia-Godoy F. Antibacterial activity of fluoride release sealants on mutans streptococci. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1996;20(2):109-11.
13. Loyola-Rodriguez JP, Garcia-Godoy F, Lindquist R. Growth inhibition of glass ionomer cements on mutans streptococci. Pediatr Dent 1994;16(5):346-9.
14. Shirani F, HavaeiA ,Malekipour M. Sharafi M. Surface Antibacterial Properties of Four Tooth-Colored Re-storative Materials. Jdt 2008;5(1):1-6.
15. Chau NP, Pandit S, Cai JN, Lee MH, Jeon JG. Relationship between fluoride release rate and anti-cariogenic biofilm activity of glass ionomercements. Dent mater 2015;31(4):100-8.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2021 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb