World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Antibacterial Efficacy of Giomers and Compomers against Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus: An In Vitro Study

Revathi M, CN Vijay Kumar, KS Suresh, Asima Banu, SK Shrinath, Sooraj J Satheebhai

Keywords : Antibacterial, Caries resistance, Culture, Esthetic restorations

Citation Information : M R, Kumar CV, Suresh K, Banu A, Shrinath S, Satheebhai SJ. Comparative Evaluation of Antibacterial Efficacy of Giomers and Compomers against Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2018; 9 (6):505-512.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1588

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: An in vitro study to evaluate and compare the antibacterial efficacy of giomer and compomer against Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Lactobacillus acidophilus (L. acidophilus). Material and methods: Antibacterial activity of giomer (Beautifil flow plus, Shofu Inc., Kyoto, Japan) and compomer (Dyract XP, Dentsply, Germany) was assessed using the agar diffusion test, in triplicate. Test specimens for both the dental materials were prepared using a custom made teflon ring mold with a diameter of 6.5 mm and thickness of 2 mm and inserted into the punched wells (6.5 mm x 2 mm) in the BHI agar, 0.2% chlorhexidine digluconate placed in other well acted as a control. The agar plates were incubated at 37o C for 24 hours, later size of the inhibition zones was measured (in mm) by digital vernier caliper at three different points at 24 hours, 48 hours and 7 days interval. Results were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. Results: Nearly 0.2% chlorhexidine, the control group showed an inhibition zone, whereas the restorative materials did not show the inhibition zone as well the antibacterial efficacy against S. mutans and L. acidophilus. Conclusion: None of the hybrid esthetic restorative material tested in this study possesses antibacterial properties.


PDF Share
  1. Weng Y, Chong VJ, Howard L, Huang R, Gregory RL, Xie D. A novel antibacterial dental resin composite. Journal of Biomaterials and Nanobiotechnology. 2012;3(2):130.
  2. Zafar MS. Effects of surface pre-reacted glass particles on fluoride release of dental restorative materials. World Appl Sci J. 2013;28(4):457-462.
  3. Dionysopoulos D. The effect of fluoride-releasing restorative materials on inhibition of secondary caries formation. Fluoride. 2014;47(3):258-265.
  4. Arora V. Giomer-a new hybrid aesthetic restorative material. J Conserv Dent. 2002;5(4):149-155.
  5. El Mallakh BF, Sarkar NK. Fluoride release from glassionomer cements in de-ionized water and artificial saliva. Dental Materials. 1990;6(2):118-122.
  6. Aas JA, Griffen AL, Dardis SR, Lee AM, Olsen I, Dewhirst FE, et al. Bacteria of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth in children and young adults. Journal of clinical microbiology. 2008;46(4):1407-1417.
  7. Yaman SD, Er O, Yetmez M, Karabay GA. In vitro inhibition of caries-like lesions with fluoride releasing materials. J Oral Sci 2004;46(1):45-50.
  8. Mungara J, Philip J, Joseph E, Rajendran S, Elangovan A, Selvaraju G. Comparative evaluation of fluoride release and recharge of pre-reacted glass ionomer composite and nano-ionomeric glass ionomer with daily fluoride exposure: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2013;31(4):234-239.
  9. Vermeersch G, Leloup G, Vreven J. Fluoride release from glass-ionomer cements, compomers and resin composites. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28(1):26-32.
  10. Mohammed NR, Kent NW, Lynch RJ, Karpukhina N, Hill R, Anderson P. Effects of fluoride on in vitro enamel demineralization analyzed by 19F MAS-NMR. Caries Res 2013; 47(5):421-428.
  11. De Schepper EJ, Thrasher MR, Thurmond BA. Antibacterial effects of light-cured liners. American journal of dentistry. 1989;2(3):74-76.
  12. Fraga RC, Siqueira JF Jr, de Uzeda M. In vitro evaluation of antibacterial effects of photo-cured glass ionomer liners and dentin bonding agents during setting. J Prosthet Dent. 1996 Nov 76(5):483-486.
  13. Boeckh C, Schumacher E, Podbielski A, Haller B. Antibacterial activity of restorative dental biomaterials in vitro. Caries Research. 2002;36(2):101-107.
  14. Matalon S, Slutzky H, Weiss EI. Surface antibacterial properties of packable resin composites: part I. Quintessence Int. 2004; Mar 35(3):189-193.
  15. Turkheim HJ. In vitro experiments on the bactericidal effect of zinc oxide eugenol cement on bacteria-containing dentin. Journal of Dental Research. 1955;34:295-301.
  16. Shirani FA, Havaei A, Malekipour M, Sharafi M. Surface antibacterial properties of four tooth-colored restorative materials. Journal of Dentistry of Tehran University of Medical Sciences. 2008;5(1):1-6.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.