World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 4 ( July-August, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effect of 15% Carbamide Peroxide on the Surface Roughness and Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to Microhybrid Composite Resin and Giomer

Sahand Rikhtegaran, Mahdi Rahbar, Narmin Mohammadi, Shadieh Mowlaie, Siavash Savadi-Oskoee, Mohammad E Ebrahimi, Tahereh Pirzadeh

Citation Information : Rikhtegaran S, Rahbar M, Mohammadi N, Mowlaie S, Savadi-Oskoee S, Ebrahimi ME, Pirzadeh T. Effect of 15% Carbamide Peroxide on the Surface Roughness and Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to Microhybrid Composite Resin and Giomer. World J Dent 2017; 8 (4):288-295.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1452

Published Online: 01-08-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction

Adhesion of bacteria, especially Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans), to the surface of tooth restorations is a factor in the etiology of secondary caries. Given the ever-increasing popularity of bleaching procedures, the aim of the present study was to evaluate adhesion of S. mutans and surface roughness (SR) of microhybrid composite resin and giomer subsequent to the application of 15% carbamide peroxide.

Materials and methods

Twenty disk-shaped samples were prepared from each material, measuring 8 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness. Then, the samples of each material were divided into two groups (n = 10): (a) microhybrid without bleaching; (b) microhybrid with bleaching; and (c) giomer without bleaching; and (d) giomer with bleaching. The samples in groups I and III were immersed in artificial saliva for 14 days without any bleaching procedure; the samples in groups II and IV underwent a bleaching procedure on their polished surfaces with 15% carbamide peroxide for 14 days (4 hours of bleaching and 20 hours of immersion in artificial saliva). The SR of all the samples was determined with the use of a profilometer. The samples were added to the culture medium after 4 hours of placement in a microbial suspension at 37°C; after 24 hours of incubation at 37°C, the bacterial counts, indicating the number of bacteria adhering to the surface, were determined by counting them in the plates containing the solid culture medium.

Results

The type of the restorative material had a significant effect on SR, with greater SR in giomer (p = 0.03). However, bleaching had no significant effect on SR (p = 0.099). In relation to the rate of bacterial adhesion (BA), both the types of the restorative materials and bleaching procedures were significantly effective; in this context, there was more BA in microhybrid composite resin samples that did not undergo bleaching (p < 0.001). Bleaching resulted in the adhesion of S. mutans to the surface of both materials decrease. Pearson's correlation coefficient did not reveal any correlation between BA and SR (p = 0.42).

Conclusion

The BA was higher in microhybrid composite resin, and SR was higher in giomer. The BA was higher in samples that did not undergo a bleaching procedure.

Clinical significance

There is no change in the SR of microhybrid composite resin and giomer after application of 15% carbamide peroxide; therefore, it is not necessary to polish or replace these restorative materials after bleaching. In addition, use of 15% carbamide peroxide does not increase caries risk.

How to cite this article

Mohammadi N, Mowlaie S, Savadi- Oskoee S, Ebrahimi ME, Rikhtegaran S, Rahbar M, Pirzadeh T. Effect of 15% Carbamide Peroxide on the Surface Roughness and Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to Microhybrid Composite Resin and Giomer. World J Dent 2017;8(4):288-295.


PDF Share
  1. Effect of different bleaching strategies on microhardness of a silorane-based composite resin. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2016 Fall;10(4):213-219.
  2. Effects of light activated in-office bleaching on permeability, microhardness, and mineral content of enamel. Oper Dent 2014 Sep-Oct;39(5):E225-E230.
  3. The effect of a 10% carbamide peroxide bleaching agent on the microhardness of four types of direct resin-based restorative materials. Oper Dent 2013 May-Jun;38(3):316-323.
  4. Bacterial adherence to bleached surfaces of composite resin in vitro. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998 Nov;86(5):585-586.
  5. Evaluation of bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans on dental restorative materials. Biomaterials 2004 Aug;25(18):4457-4463.
  6. The association of bacterial adhesion with dental caries. J Dent Res 2001 Nov;80(11):2005-2010.
  7. ; Ferracane, JL.; Broom, JC. Summitt's fundamentals of operative dentistry. 14th ed. Hanover Park (IL): Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc.; 2013. p. 249-252, 414.
  8. Direct composite resins. Inside Dent 2007;3(7):76-79.
  9. The effect of different beverages on surface hardness of nanohybrid resin composite and giomer. J Conserv Dent 2014 May;17(3):261-215.
  10. ; Swift, EJ.; Ritter, AV. Sturdevant's art and science of oprrative dentistry. 6th ed. Ch. 18. Canada: Mosby; 2013. p. e71.
  11. Giomer ac a new hbrid aesthetic restorative material. J Conserv Dent 2002 Oct-Dec;5(4):149-155.
  12. The effect of repeated fluoride recharge and storage media on bond durability of fluoride rechargeable giomer bonding agent. Aust Dent J 2012 Jun;57(2):178-183.
  13. Esthetics, caries control and gingival health with a versatile giomer composite system. Cosmet Dent 2012;1(2):32-36.
  14. In vitro adherence of microorganisms to denture base resin with different surface texture. Dent Mater J 1990 Jun;9(1):19-24.
  15. Adherence of oral streptococci to composite resin restorative materials. J Dent 1989 Oct;17(5):225-229.
  16. Effects of two prophylaxis methods on adherence of Streptococcus mutans to microfiled composite resin and giomer surfaces. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Buccal 2011 Jul;16(4):e561-e567.
  17. Changes in enamel surface roughness and adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to enamel after vital bleaching. J Dent 2003 Nov;31(8):543-548.
  18. In vitro adherence of bacteria to bleached or unbleached enamel surfaces. J Oral Rehabil 1997 Aug;24(8):624-627.
  19. Effect of 10% sodium ascorbate on Streptococcus mutans adherence to bleached bovine enamel surface. Afr J Biotechol 2010 Aug;9(33):5419-5422.
  20. Effect of bleaching on surface roughness of two nanofilled and a microhybrid composite. J Isfahan Dent Sch 2008;3(4):195-205.
  21. Effects of home bleaching on surface hardness and surface roughness of an experimental nanocomposite. J Conserv Dent 2013 Jul;16(4):356-361.
  22. Effects of external bleaching on restorative materials: a review. J Can Dent Assoc 2011 May; 77: b59.
  23. Effect of three bleaching agents on the surface properties of three different esthetic restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2003 May;89(5):466-473.
  24. Tooth-bleaching procedures and their controversial effects: a literature review. Saudi Dent J 2014 Apr;26(2):33-46.
  25. Influence of different bleaching agents on surface roughness of composite resins filling. Mater Plast 2014 Jun;51(3):279-281.
  26. The effect of home bleaching agents on the surface roughness of five different composite resins: a SEM evaluation. J Scan Microsc 2016 May;38(3):277-283.
  27. Effect of 15% carbamide peroxide bleaching gel on color stablity of giomer and microfield composite resin: an in vitro comparison. Med Oral Pathol Oral Cir Bucal 2012 Nov;1(17):e1089-e1098.
  28. The effect of hydrogen peroxide 35% on surface roughness of silorane and methacrylate based composites. Sci J Hamadan Univ Med Sci 2015;22(1):23-29.
  29. In vitro bacterial adherence onto pellicle-coated aesthetic restorative materials. J Oral Rehabil 1998 Jan;25(1):52-58.
  30. The effect of home bleaching agents on the surface roughness and fracture toughness of composite resin materials. Dentistry 2014 Jun;4:246.
  31. Effect of bleaching gels on surface roughness of nanofilled composite resins. Eur J Dent 2011 Apr;5(2):173-179.
  32. Carbamide peroxide bleaching agents: Effects on surface roughness of enamel, composite and porcelain. Clin Oral Investig 2006 Mar;10(1):23-28.
  33. The effect of different bleaching agents on the surface texture of restorative materials. Oper Dent 2006 Jul-Aug;31(4):473-480.
  34. Effects of bleaching with carbamide peroxide gels on microhardness of restoration materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003 May;15(3):175-182.
  35. Effects of a 10% carbamide peroxide bleaching agent on roughness and microhardness of packable composite resins. J Esthet Restor Dent 2005 Jul;17(4):256-262.
  36. Effect of bleaching on restorative materials and restorations – a systematic review. Dent Mater 2004 Nov;20(9):852-861.
  37. Bacterial adhesion to dental materials – a literature review. Dent Forum 2015;41(1):65-67.
  38. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of resinmodified glass ionomers, compomers and giomers – an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015 Jul;9(7):ZC85-ZC87.
  39. Antibacterial effects of hybrid tooth colored restorative materials against Streptococcus mutans: an in vitro analysis. J Conserv Dent 2013 Jul;16(4):319-322.
  40. Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to various restorative materials in a continuous flow system. J Oral Rehabil 2004 Mar;31(3):278-285.
  41. Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to various dental materials in a laminar flow chamber system. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2008 Jul;86(1):36-44.
  42. Antibacterial activity of 10% carbamide peroxide bleaching agents. J Endod 1996 Jul;22(7):356-357.
  43. Influence of surface roughness on streptococcal adhesion forces to composite resins. Dent Mater 2011 Aug;27(8):770-778.
  44. ; Powers, JM. Craig's restoration dental materials. 13th ed. New York: Quintessence Publishing, Elsevier, Mosby; 2012. p. 18.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.