Perbedaan Perlekatan Biofilm Streptococcus mutans pada Resin Komposit Nanofil Tipe Universal Restortive dan Flowable Restorative
Downloads
Back Ground: Adherence of Stretococcus mutans biofilm (S. mutans) to the surface of dental restorative materials is considered an important step in the development of secondary caries and periodontal disease. There are two type of nanofil composite: universal restorative and flowable restorative. That have different characteristic to induce S.mutans biofilm adherent in it surface. Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the adherence of S. mutans biofilm to two types of nanofil restorative materials, flowable restorative and universal restorative.. Materials and Methode: 32 disc-shaped specimens (∅ = 5.0 mm / thickness = 2.0 mm) of two types composite were divided to 4 groups (n = 8): group 1; universal restorative were immersed in pH cycling solution for 14 days ,group 2; Universal restorative were immersed in water for 14 day,group 3: flowable restorative were immersed in pH cycling solution,group 4: flowable restorative were immersed for 14 days in water . in day 15 th, All speciments(n=32) were immersed for 24 hours in artificial saliva.. Streptococcus mutans cells were brought in contact with and grown on the speciments for 48 hours in BHI-B. Bacterial suspension was deposited onto each material and the adhesion of biofilm was evaluated trough optic density (OD) . Optic density biofilm of S.mutans analyzed using Elissa reader' Spectrophotometry. Statistical analysis was performed by Kruskall -wallis and Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). Result: Adherence of S.mutans biofilm on flowable restorative (mean OD:1,933, SD: 0,633) were significantly higher than universal restorative materials (mean OD: 1,240,SD:0,317). (P<0,05) Conclusion: The adherence of S.mutans biofilm on the surface of composites resin nanofil flowable restorative higher than universal restorative.
Al-Ahmad A, Ameen H, Pelz K, Karyagianni L, Wittmer A, Anderson AC, Spitzmuller B, Hellwig E. 2004 . Antibiotic resistance and capacity For biofilm formation of different bacteri Isolated from endodontic infection associated with root-filled teeth; JOE:40(2):22330
Bourbia M. 2013. Biodegradation of Dental Resin Composites and Adhesives by Streptococcus mutans: An in vitro Study, Thesis, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto. p.29-45
Brambilla E, Cagetti MG, Gagliani M, Fadini L,Garcia-Gody F. 2005. Influence of Different Adhesive Restorative Material on Adherence mutans Streptococci, American Journal of Dentistry. 18(3):173-176
Cahuanavasquez RA, Cury JA. 2010. Streptococcus mutans Biofilm Model to Evaluate Antimicrobial substances and enamel demineralization. Braz Oral Res. 24(2):135-41
Carolina A, Lauran A. 2015. Surface Roughness of Composite Resins Subjected to Hydrochloric Acid. Brazilian Dental Journal : Brazilian Dental Journal. 26(3): 268-271
Craig, Sakaguchi RL, Powers JP. 2012 . Craigs: RestorativeDental Material,13th edition,Elsevier. p.181
De paula AB, Alonso RCB, De Araujo AS. 2015 . Influence of Chemical Degradation and Abrasion on Surface of Nanorestorative Materials. Brazilian Journal Oral Science. 14(2): 100-105
De Paula AB, Fucio SBP, Ambrasano GMB. 2011. Biodegradation and Abrasive Wear of Nano Restorative Materials. Operative dentistry Journal. 36(6):670-677
Gharechahi M, Moosavi H, Forghani M.2012. Effect of Surface Roughness and Material composition.Journal of Biomaterials and Nanobiotechnology. 3(4):541-546
Hojo K, Nagaoka S, Ohshima T, Maeda N. 2004. Bacterial Interaction in Dental Biofilm Development, J Dent Res. 88(11):82-90
Iskandar H. 2013. Pertumbuhan Streptococcus mutans dan Kekasaran Permukaan pada Resin Komposit langsung dan Tidak langsung. Tesis Fakultas kedokteran Gigi. p. 26-36
John F. McCabe. 2008. Applied Dental Materials 9th edition, Wiley-Blackwell. p.187-198, 204-211, 254-256
Khalichi P . 2004. Effect of Composite Resin Biodegradation Products on Oral Stretococcal Growth. Biomaterials, 2004 November, Vol. 25, No. 24, p.5467-5472
Klein MI, Hwang G, Santos PHS, Campanella OH, Koo H . 2015 .Streptococcus mutans-Derived Extracellular Matrix in Cariogenic Oral Biofilms. Journal of Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 5(10): 1-8
Montonaro L, Compaccio D, Rizzi S. 2004 . Evaluation of Bacterial Adhesion of
Streptococcus mutans on dental restorative Materials Biomaterials, 25 (18): 4487-4463
Normaliza AB, Lin SL,Rahman AB, Jamaludin M. 2013 Effect of Linner on Microleakage in Class II Composite Restoration, Journal sains Malaysia.42(21): 45-51
Patidar RK, Gupta MK, Dwivedi D, Sigh V. 2010. In vitro biofilm formation potential and antimicrobial sensity of Streptococcus mutans clinical isolates.Am J Pharm Tech Res. 2(3):551-7
Pereira CA. 2011. Streptococcus mutans Biofilm Adhesion on CompositeResin Surfaces After Different Finishing and Polishing Techniques. Operative Dentistry.36(3):311-317
Poggio C, Arciola CR, Rosti F, Scribante F. 2010 . Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to Different Restorative Materials. The International Journal of Artificial Organ,2009:32(9), p;2-7
Ramiro M. Murata K.2009. Inhibition of StreptococcusMutans Biofilm Accumulation and Development of Dental Caries in vivo by 7-epiclusioan one and Fluoride, Biofouling.26(7) : 865-872
Studervant. 2005 .The Art and Science of Operative Dentistry,3 th ed, Mosby Company, St. Louis,Baltimore, Berlin,Boston, Chicago,London, New York, Philadelphia, Sidney, Tokyo,Toronto, p. 253-576
Takahashi Y, Imazato S, Russel RR, Noiiri Y, Ebisu S. 2004. Influence of Resin monomer on Growth of Oral Streptococci. J. Dent Res, 18(6):45-67
Talaro.2002.Foundation in Microbiology,4thed. the MacGraw-Hill p.654-656
Usha HL, Kaiwar A, Deepak M. 2010. Biofilm in endodontics: New Understanding to an old problem.IJCD.December:1-3
Valinoti AC, Neves BG, Silva EM. 2008 Surface Degradation Of Composite Resin By Acidic Medicine and pH-Cycling, J Appl Oral Sci. 16(4):257-65
CDJ by Unair is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1. The journal allows the author to hold the copyright of the article without restrictions.
2. The journal allows the author(s) to retain publishing rights without restrictions