Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative assessment of antibacterial activity of different glass ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteria

  • Received : 2016.04.18
  • Accepted : 2016.07.15
  • Published : 2016.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: Glass ionomer cements (GICs), which are biocompatible and adhesive to the tooth surface, are widely used nowadays for tooth restoration. They inhibit the demineralization and promote the remineralization of the tooth structure adjacent to the restoration, as well as interfere with bacterial growth. Hence, the present study was conducted to assess and compare the antimicrobial activity of three commercially available GICs against two cariogenic bacteria. Materials and Methods: An agar plate diffusion test was used for evaluating the antimicrobial effect of three different GICs (Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, and d-tech) on Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Lactobacillus acidophilus (L. acidophilus). Thirty plates were prepared and divided into two groups. The first group was inoculated with S. mutans, and the second group was inoculated with L. acidophilus. These plates were then incubated at $37^{\circ}C$ for 24 hours. Zones of bacterial growth inhibition that formed around each well were recorded in millimeters (mm). Results: The zones of inhibition for Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, and d-tech on S. mutans were found to be $10.84{\pm}0.22mm$, $10.23{\pm}0.15mm$, and $15.65{\pm}0.31mm$, respectively, whereas those for L. acidophilus were found to be $10.43{\pm}0.12mm$, $10.16{\pm}0.11mm$, and $15.57{\pm}0.13mm$, respectively. Conclusions: D-tech cement performed better in terms of the zone of bacterial inhibition against the two test bacteria, than the other two tested glass ionomers.

Keywords

References

  1. California Health Care Foundation: Emergency Department Visits for Preventable Dental Conditions in California. Available from: http://www.chcf.org/publications/2009/03/emergency-department-visitsfor-preventable-dental-conditions-in-california (updated 2016 Aug 31).
  2. World Health Organization: WHO Oral health fact sheet $N^{\circ}318$. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs318/en/ (updated 2015 Jan 12).
  3. Petersen PE, Bourgeois D, Ogawa H, Estupinan-Day S, Ndiaye C. The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health. Bull World Health Organ 2005;83:661-669.
  4. Horowitz AM. Introduction to the symposium on minimal intervention techniques for caries. J Public Health Dent 1996;56:133-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.1996.tb02422.x
  5. Ismail AI, Hasson H, Sohn W. Dental caries in the second millennium. J Dent Educ 2001;65:953-959.
  6. Llena Puy C, Forner Navarro L. Evidence concerning the medical management of caries. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2008;13:E325-E330.
  7. Lai GY, Li MY. Secondary caries. In: Li MY, editor. Contemporary approach to dental caries. Shanghai: InTech; 2012. p403-422. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/contemporary-approach-todentalcaries/secondary-caries (updated 2016 Aug 31).
  8. Weerheijm KL, Groen HJ. The residual caries dilemma. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999;27:436-441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1999.tb02045.x
  9. Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials? - properties, limitations and future trends. Mater 2010;3:76-96.
  10. Upadhya NP, Kishore G. Glass ionomer cement - the different generations. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2005;18:158-65.
  11. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39:175-191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
  12. da Silva RC, Zuanon AC, Spolidorio DM, Campos JA. Antibacterial activity of four glass ionomer cements used in atraumatic restorative treatment. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007;18:1859-1862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-007-3035-4
  13. Queiroz AM, Nelson-Filho P, Silva LA, Assed S, Silva RA, Ito IY. Antibacterial activity of root canal filling materials for primary teeth: zinc oxide and eugenol cement, Calen paste thickened with zinc oxide, Sealapex and EndoREZ. Braz Dent J 2009;20:290-296. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402009000400005
  14. Luczaj-Cepowicz E, Marczuk-Kolada G, Zalewska A, Pawinska M, Leszczynska K. Antibacterial activity of selected glass ionomer cements. Postepy Hig Med Dosw 2014;68:23-28. https://doi.org/10.5604/17322693.1086069
  15. Goldman E, Green LH, editors. Practical handbook of microbiology. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2009. p150-151.
  16. Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J 2011;56(Supplement 1):23-30.
  17. Cooper KE, Linton AH, Sehgal SN. The effect of inoculurn size on inhibition zones in agar media using staphylococci and streptomycin. J Gen Microbial 1958;18:670-687. https://doi.org/10.1099/00221287-18-3-670

Cited by

  1. The Comparison of Biofilm Formation, Mechanical and Chemical Properties between Glass Ionomer Cement and Giomer vol.15, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210602115010274