World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Antimicrobial Effect of Selenium-containing Primer in Prevention of White Spot Lesions: An In Vitro Study

P Deepak, AKR S Priya

Keywords : Cross-sectional microhardness, DenteShield™, Mineral loss, Shear bond strength, Transbond XT

Citation Information : Deepak P, Priya AS. Antimicrobial Effect of Selenium-containing Primer in Prevention of White Spot Lesions: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2024; 15 (5):389-393.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2434

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-06-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an antimicrobial primer containing selenium on the development of white spot lesions (WSLs) and shear bond strength after artificial caries induction. Materials and methods: A total of 90 maxillary premolars were divided into two groups, with 40 in each. Group I comprised specimens treated with Transbond XT primer (Etch + Transbond XT primer application + Transbond XT adhesive), while group II consisted of specimens treated with DenteShield™ primer (Etch + DenteShield™ primer + Transbond XT adhesive). The remaining 10 samples underwent only a cross-sectional microhardness test (at 10, 30, 50, 80, and 100 µm) to establish baseline data. After bonding, all samples were stored in artificial saliva for 24 hours. Out of the 40 samples in each group, 30 were subjected to microbial caries induction for 10, 30, and 60 days, respectively, by inoculating dental plaque containing Streptococcus mutans in a medium of brain heart infusion (BHI). These samples were then tested for shear bond strength and cross-sectional microhardness. Both groups were evaluated for their antimicrobial property by agar diffusion test and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC). Data were recorded and statistically analyzed. Results: In group I, the microhardness decreased at depths of 10, 30, and 50 µm, with a mineral loss of 50, 36, and 13%, respectively. Comparatively, there was a reduced mineral loss of 18 and 11% for depths of 10 and 30 µm, respectively, in group II. Group II exhibited a shear bond strength of 12.9 ± 2.8 MPa, while group I showed 13.5 ± 1.9 MPa. The shear bond strength between the two groups showed no statistical significance. Group II demonstrated effective antimicrobial properties when evaluated with the agar diffusion method and MIC. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that DenteShield™ inhibited biofilm and reduced WSLs without compromising the shear bond strength. Clinical significance: The clinical significance of these findings lies in addressing the challenge of preventing WSLs in orthodontics. Therefore, DenteShield™ could serve as a viable alternative to conventional primers in orthodontic bonding procedures, due to its favorable impact on reducing WSLs while maintaining shear bond strength.

PDF Share
  1. Bishara SE, Ostby AW. White spot lesions: formation, prevention, and treatment. Sem Orthod 2008;14(3):174–182. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2008.03.002
  2. Sardana D, Zhang J, Ekambaram M, et al. Effectiveness of professional fluorides against enamel white spot lesions during fixed orthodontic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2019;82:1–0. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.12.006
  3. Øgaard B. White spot lesions during orthodontic treatment: mechanisms and fluoride preventive aspects. Sem Orthod 2008;14(3):183–193. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2008.03.003
  4. Oz AZ, Oz AA, Yazıcıoglu S. In vivo effect of antibacterial and fluoride-releasing adhesives on enamel demineralization around brackets: a micro-CT study. Angle Orthod 2017;87(6):841–846. DOI: 10.2319/060217-371.1
  5. Reid ME, Stratton MS, Lillico AJ, et al. A report of high-dose selenium supplementation: response and toxicities. J Trace Elem Med Biol 2004;18(91):69–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtemb.2004.03.004
  6. Tran PL, Hammond AA, Mosley T, et al. Organoselenium coating on cellulose inhibits the formation of biofilms by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Appl Env Microbiol 2009;75(11):3586–3592. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.02683-08
  7. Restrepo M, Bussaneli DG, Jeremias F, et al. Control of white spot lesion adjacent to orthodontic bracket with use of fluoride varnish or chlorhexidine gel. Sci World J 2015;2015:218452. DOI: 10.1155/2015/218452
  8. Shooter KJ, Griffin MP, Kerr B. The effect of changing crosshead speed on the shear bond strength of orthodontic bonding adhesive. Austr Orthod J 2012;28(1):44–50. DOI: 10.2478/aoj-2012-0007
  9. Nascimento PLMM, Meereis CTW, Maske TT, et al. Addition of ammonium-based methacrylates to an experimental dental adhesive for bonding metal brackets: carious lesion development and bond strength after cariogenic challenge. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2017;151(5):949–956. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.10.028
  10. Tran P, Hamood A, Mosley T, et al. Organo-selenium-containing dental sealant inhibits bacterial biofilm. J Dent Res 2013;92(5):461–466. DOI: 10.1177/0022034513482141
  11. Buzalaf MA, Hannas AR, Magalhães AC, et al. pH-cycling models for in vitro evaluation of the efficacy of fluoridated dentifrices for caries control: strengths and limitations. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18(4):316–334. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572010000400002
  12. Marquezan M, Corrêa FN, Sanabe ME, et al. Artificial methods of dentine caries induction: a hardness and morphological comparative study. Arch Oral Biol 2009;54(12):1111–1117. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2009.09.007
  13. Motisuki C, Lima LM, Bronzi ES, et al. The effectiveness of alumina powder on carious dentin removal. Operat Dent 2006;31(3):371–376. DOI: 10.2341/05-48
  14. Øgaard B, Rølla G, Arends J. Orthodontic appliances and enamel demineralization: part 1. Lesion development. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988;94(1):68–73. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90453-2
  15. Featherstone JD. Remineralization, the natural caries repair process—the need for new approaches. Adv Dent Res 2009;21(1):4–7. DOI: 10.1177/0895937409335590
  16. Craig RG, Peyton FA. The microhardness of enamel and dentin. J Dent Res 1958;37(4):661–668. DOI: 10.1177/00220345580370041301
  17. Staley RN. Effect of fluoride varnish on demineralization around orthodontic brackets. Sem Orthod 2008;14(3):194–199. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2008.03.004
  18. Amaechi BT, Kasundra H, Okoye LO, et al. Comparative efficacy in preventing plaque formation around pit and fissure sealants: a clinical trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20(5):531–536. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2552
  19. Hammad SM, Abdellatif A. Effects of three different topical agents on enamel demineralization around orthodontic brackets: a clinical study. Aust Dent J 2016;2(2):1–4. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01233.x
  20. Pudyani PS, Safitri F, Alhasyimi AA. Effect of orthodontic sealant containing antimicrobial selenium on the shear bond strength of orthodontic bracket. J Orofac Sci 2018;10(2):96–100. DOI: 10.4103/jofs.jofs_16_18
  21. Chudobova D, Cihalova K, Dostalova S, et al. Comparison of the effects of silver phosphate and selenium nanoparticles on Staphylococcus aureus growth reveals potential for selenium particles to prevent infection. FEMS Microbiol Lett 2014;351(2):195–201. DOI: 10.1111/1574-6968.12353
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.