Cargando…

Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity of a Bioactive Restorative Material Versus a Glass-Ionomer Cement on Streptococcus Mutans: In-Vitro Study

Background: Dental caries management consists of both preventive and restorative approaches. Pediatric dentists can rely on many techniques and materials to restore decayed teeth, but a high failure rate is still observed, mainly due to secondary caries. New restorative bioactive materials combine t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Conti, Giulio, Veneri, Federica, Amadori, Francesca, Garzoni, Alba, Majorana, Alessandra, Bardellini, Elena
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10297256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37366672
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11060149
_version_ 1785063840641187840
author Conti, Giulio
Veneri, Federica
Amadori, Francesca
Garzoni, Alba
Majorana, Alessandra
Bardellini, Elena
author_facet Conti, Giulio
Veneri, Federica
Amadori, Francesca
Garzoni, Alba
Majorana, Alessandra
Bardellini, Elena
author_sort Conti, Giulio
collection PubMed
description Background: Dental caries management consists of both preventive and restorative approaches. Pediatric dentists can rely on many techniques and materials to restore decayed teeth, but a high failure rate is still observed, mainly due to secondary caries. New restorative bioactive materials combine the mechanical and aesthetic characteristics of resinous materials with the capability to remineralize and the antimicrobial properties of glass ionomers, thus counteracting the occurrence of secondary caries. The aim of this study was to assess the antimicrobial activity against Streptococcus mutans of a bioactive restorative material (ACTIVA™ BioActive-Restorative™-Pulpdent©) and a glass ionomer cement with silver particles added (Ketac™ Silver—3M©), using agar diffusion assay. Methods: Each material was formed into disks of 4 mm in diameter, and four discs of each material were placed on nine agar plates. The analysis was repeated seven times. Results: Both materials showed statistically significant growth inhibition properties against S. mutans (p < 0.05). The difference in the effectiveness of the two materials was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Both ACTIVA™ and Ketac™ Silver can be recommended since both are similarly effective against S. mutans. However ACTIVA™, given its bioactivity and better aesthetics and mechanical properties compared to GICs, may provide better clinical performance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10297256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102972562023-06-28 Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity of a Bioactive Restorative Material Versus a Glass-Ionomer Cement on Streptococcus Mutans: In-Vitro Study Conti, Giulio Veneri, Federica Amadori, Francesca Garzoni, Alba Majorana, Alessandra Bardellini, Elena Dent J (Basel) Article Background: Dental caries management consists of both preventive and restorative approaches. Pediatric dentists can rely on many techniques and materials to restore decayed teeth, but a high failure rate is still observed, mainly due to secondary caries. New restorative bioactive materials combine the mechanical and aesthetic characteristics of resinous materials with the capability to remineralize and the antimicrobial properties of glass ionomers, thus counteracting the occurrence of secondary caries. The aim of this study was to assess the antimicrobial activity against Streptococcus mutans of a bioactive restorative material (ACTIVA™ BioActive-Restorative™-Pulpdent©) and a glass ionomer cement with silver particles added (Ketac™ Silver—3M©), using agar diffusion assay. Methods: Each material was formed into disks of 4 mm in diameter, and four discs of each material were placed on nine agar plates. The analysis was repeated seven times. Results: Both materials showed statistically significant growth inhibition properties against S. mutans (p < 0.05). The difference in the effectiveness of the two materials was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Both ACTIVA™ and Ketac™ Silver can be recommended since both are similarly effective against S. mutans. However ACTIVA™, given its bioactivity and better aesthetics and mechanical properties compared to GICs, may provide better clinical performance. MDPI 2023-06-08 /pmc/articles/PMC10297256/ /pubmed/37366672 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11060149 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Conti, Giulio
Veneri, Federica
Amadori, Francesca
Garzoni, Alba
Majorana, Alessandra
Bardellini, Elena
Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity of a Bioactive Restorative Material Versus a Glass-Ionomer Cement on Streptococcus Mutans: In-Vitro Study
title Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity of a Bioactive Restorative Material Versus a Glass-Ionomer Cement on Streptococcus Mutans: In-Vitro Study
title_full Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity of a Bioactive Restorative Material Versus a Glass-Ionomer Cement on Streptococcus Mutans: In-Vitro Study
title_fullStr Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity of a Bioactive Restorative Material Versus a Glass-Ionomer Cement on Streptococcus Mutans: In-Vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity of a Bioactive Restorative Material Versus a Glass-Ionomer Cement on Streptococcus Mutans: In-Vitro Study
title_short Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity of a Bioactive Restorative Material Versus a Glass-Ionomer Cement on Streptococcus Mutans: In-Vitro Study
title_sort evaluation of antibacterial activity of a bioactive restorative material versus a glass-ionomer cement on streptococcus mutans: in-vitro study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10297256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37366672
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj11060149
work_keys_str_mv AT contigiulio evaluationofantibacterialactivityofabioactiverestorativematerialversusaglassionomercementonstreptococcusmutansinvitrostudy
AT venerifederica evaluationofantibacterialactivityofabioactiverestorativematerialversusaglassionomercementonstreptococcusmutansinvitrostudy
AT amadorifrancesca evaluationofantibacterialactivityofabioactiverestorativematerialversusaglassionomercementonstreptococcusmutansinvitrostudy
AT garzonialba evaluationofantibacterialactivityofabioactiverestorativematerialversusaglassionomercementonstreptococcusmutansinvitrostudy
AT majoranaalessandra evaluationofantibacterialactivityofabioactiverestorativematerialversusaglassionomercementonstreptococcusmutansinvitrostudy
AT bardellinielena evaluationofantibacterialactivityofabioactiverestorativematerialversusaglassionomercementonstreptococcusmutansinvitrostudy