Biofilm attachment and mineralizing potential of contemporary restorative materials.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
American journal of dentistry Pub Date : 2024-12-01
Suad Shamieh, Apoena A Ribeiro, Taiseer Sulaiman, Edward J Swift, Adalberto B Vasconcellos
{"title":"Biofilm attachment and mineralizing potential of contemporary restorative materials.","authors":"Suad Shamieh, Apoena A Ribeiro, Taiseer Sulaiman, Edward J Swift, Adalberto B Vasconcellos","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate and compare: (1) the effect of the bacterial biofilm on the dentin mineral density at the restoration-tooth interface and (2) the mineralization potential of three resin-based restorative materials (RBRM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>16 extracted human molars free of caries and cracks were collected and stored for disinfection. Each tooth received two standardized Class II preparations with the cervical margin placed in dentin. Teeth were secured into a dentiform with adjacent natural teeth to ensure interproximal contact. All tooth preparations were hybridized using a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system (OptiBond FL) and assigned randomly to three experimental groups according to the RBRM (n= 8): Group A - a nanofill resin composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra); Group B - a high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composite (Tetric Powerfill); Group C - a low-viscosity bulk-fill resin composite (SureFil SDR flow+ bulk-fill); and a positive control: Group D - bioactive resin composite (Activa Bioactive-Restorative). All materials were used according to manufacturers' instructions. All specimens were subjected to two distinct challenges: first, thermomechanical cycling was performed within 24 hours of restoring the specimens to simulate 1 year of masticatory function. Subsequently, the specimens were stored for 18 days in a laboratory biofilm model to promote biofilm formation and to mimic the effects of tooth demineralization. Two sessions of micro-CT imaging were conducted: the first immediately after the thermomechanical cycling and the second post-exposure to the biofilm model. All data on mineral profile measurements reconstructed in the Perkin-Elmer Quantum GX-II CT were transferred to Image J software for analysis and interpretation. The ANOVA test (P< 0.05) was used to analyze the mineral density values and mean mineral loss values for each group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No statistically significant difference in mean mineral loss value (mean ΔZ) was found between the groups (P= 0.209). Regardless, increased mean ΔZ variation was found between SureFil SDR flow+ (-56.95) and the remaining groups, Filtek Supreme Ultra, Tetric Powerfill and Activa Bioactive (-1.17, -1.41, and -7.97, respectively), showing, within the limits of the present laboratory study, the remineralization potential of SureFil SDR flow+. All tested RBRM demonstrated some remineralization capacity under caries risk conditions.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The mineralization potential of some resin-based composites under caries-risk conditions can represent a paradigm shift in restorative material selection for moderate-to-high-risk patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":7538,"journal":{"name":"American journal of dentistry","volume":"37 6","pages":"279-287"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate and compare: (1) the effect of the bacterial biofilm on the dentin mineral density at the restoration-tooth interface and (2) the mineralization potential of three resin-based restorative materials (RBRM).

Methods: 16 extracted human molars free of caries and cracks were collected and stored for disinfection. Each tooth received two standardized Class II preparations with the cervical margin placed in dentin. Teeth were secured into a dentiform with adjacent natural teeth to ensure interproximal contact. All tooth preparations were hybridized using a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system (OptiBond FL) and assigned randomly to three experimental groups according to the RBRM (n= 8): Group A - a nanofill resin composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra); Group B - a high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composite (Tetric Powerfill); Group C - a low-viscosity bulk-fill resin composite (SureFil SDR flow+ bulk-fill); and a positive control: Group D - bioactive resin composite (Activa Bioactive-Restorative). All materials were used according to manufacturers' instructions. All specimens were subjected to two distinct challenges: first, thermomechanical cycling was performed within 24 hours of restoring the specimens to simulate 1 year of masticatory function. Subsequently, the specimens were stored for 18 days in a laboratory biofilm model to promote biofilm formation and to mimic the effects of tooth demineralization. Two sessions of micro-CT imaging were conducted: the first immediately after the thermomechanical cycling and the second post-exposure to the biofilm model. All data on mineral profile measurements reconstructed in the Perkin-Elmer Quantum GX-II CT were transferred to Image J software for analysis and interpretation. The ANOVA test (P< 0.05) was used to analyze the mineral density values and mean mineral loss values for each group.

Results: No statistically significant difference in mean mineral loss value (mean ΔZ) was found between the groups (P= 0.209). Regardless, increased mean ΔZ variation was found between SureFil SDR flow+ (-56.95) and the remaining groups, Filtek Supreme Ultra, Tetric Powerfill and Activa Bioactive (-1.17, -1.41, and -7.97, respectively), showing, within the limits of the present laboratory study, the remineralization potential of SureFil SDR flow+. All tested RBRM demonstrated some remineralization capacity under caries risk conditions.

Clinical significance: The mineralization potential of some resin-based composites under caries-risk conditions can represent a paradigm shift in restorative material selection for moderate-to-high-risk patients.

当代修复材料的生物膜附着和矿化潜力。
目的:评价和比较:(1)细菌生物膜对修复体-牙齿界面牙本质矿物质密度的影响;(2)三种树脂基修复材料(RBRM)的矿化潜力。方法:收集16颗拔除的无龋裂的人磨牙,保存消毒。每颗牙齿接受两次标准化的II级预备,颈缘放置在牙本质内。将牙齿与相邻的天然牙齿固定成牙形,以确保近端接触。使用三步蚀刻-冲洗胶粘剂系统(OptiBond FL)对所有牙齿制剂进行杂交,并根据RBRM随机分为三个实验组(n= 8): a组-纳米填充树脂复合材料(Filtek Supreme Ultra);B组-高粘度大块填充树脂复合材料(electric Powerfill);C组-低粘度体填料树脂复合材料(SureFil SDR流+体填料);阳性对照:D组-生物活性树脂复合材料(Activa bioactive - restorative)。所有的材料都是按照制造商的说明使用的。所有标本都受到两个不同的挑战:首先,在修复标本后的24小时内进行热-机械循环,以模拟1年的咀嚼功能。随后,将标本在实验室生物膜模型中保存18天,以促进生物膜的形成并模拟牙齿脱矿的效果。进行了两次显微ct成像:第一次是在热机械循环后立即进行的,第二次是在暴露于生物膜模型后进行的。所有在Perkin-Elmer Quantum GX-II CT中重建的矿物剖面测量数据都被传输到Image J软件中进行分析和解释。采用方差分析(ANOVA)检验(P< 0.05)分析各组的矿物质密度值和平均矿物质损失值。结果:各组间平均矿物质损失值(mean ΔZ)差异无统计学意义(P= 0.209)。无论如何,在SureFil SDR flow+(-56.95)和其余组(Filtek Supreme Ultra, Tetric Powerfill和Activa Bioactive)(分别为-1.17,-1.41和-7.97)之间发现了增加的平均ΔZ变化,这表明,在本实验室研究的范围内,SureFil SDR flow+具有再矿化潜力。所有测试的RBRM在有龋齿风险的条件下都显示出一定的再矿化能力。临床意义:在龋齿风险条件下,一些树脂基复合材料的矿化潜力可以代表中等至高风险患者修复材料选择的范式转变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American journal of dentistry
American journal of dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Dentistry, published by Mosher & Linder, Inc., provides peer-reviewed scientific articles with clinical significance for the general dental practitioner.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信