Examination of Streptococcus Mutans Adhesion in Current Hybrid Ceramics and Composites

Recep Kara^1,

¹Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Aydın University, Istanbul, Turkey

Cite this paper:
Recep Kara. Examination of Streptococcus Mutans Adhesion in Current Hybrid Ceramics and Composites. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2020; 8(5):138-142. doi: 10.12691/ijdsr-8-5-5

Abstract

This study evaluated the surface topography and bacterial adhesion of a different hybrid ceramics and resin composites after optimal surface finishes. A total of disk samples were prepared using two different CAD/CAM blocks [Vita Enamic (VE), Shofu HC (SHC)] and two different composites [Tetric N Ceram bulk-fill (TNC), Estelite Sigma Quick (ESQ)] with diameter 10 mm and thickness 4.0 ± 0.2mm. Fifteen disc samples were produced for each group (n=15). Surfaces of the sample disks were polished according to the manufacturer’s recommendations with the specially produced polish sets. The surface roughness of specimens was analyzed parameter (Ra), sterilized, and subjected to bacterial adhesion. Data were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α= 0.05). TNC and ESQ groups had lower surface roughness than VE and SHC groups (p<0.05). There was no difference in bacterial adhesion between hybrid CAD/CAM blocks and composite materials. The material type and surface finishing system did not significantly interfere with surface roughness parameters and bacterial adhesion. The surface polishing of nanocomposite resins performed is better than hybrid ceramic after polishing. An adequate finishing/polishing technique should always be applied after any adjustments made to indirect restorations with these materials tested. There is no difference between bacterial adhesions of the tested materials. If appropriate and sufficient, polishing is performed.

Keywords:
bacterial adhesion S. mutans CAD/CAM hybrid ceramics composite resins

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Nguyen JF, Ruse D, Phan AC, Sadoun MJ. High-temperature-pressure polymerized resin-infiltrated ceramic networks. J Dent Res. 2014; 93(1): 62-67.
[2]	Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ. Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 98(5): 389-404.
[3]	Kelly JR, Benetti P. Ceramic materials in dentistry: Historical evolution and current practice. Aust Dent J. 2011; 56(SUPPL. 1).
[4]	Rusin RP, Häberlein I, Schmid B, Stöger H, Hauke M, Brown SM. Plaque growth and activity on a resin nanoceramic CAD/CAM material. Dent Mater. 2013; 29.
[5]	Cazzaniga G, Ottobelli M, Ionescu A, Garcia-Godoy F, Brambilla E. Surface properties of resin-based composite materials and biofilm formation: A review of the current literature. Am J Dent. 2015; 28(6).
[6]	Flemming HC, Wingender J. The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010; 8(9).
[7]	Lemos JA, Quivey RG, Koo H, Abranches J. Streptococcus mutans: A new Gram-positive paradigm? Microbiol (United Kingdom). 2013; 159(PART3).
[8]	Kawai K, Urano M, Ebisu S. Effect of surface roughness of porcelain on adhesion of bacteria and their synthesizing glucans. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 83(6).
[9]	Kakaboura A, Fragouli M, Rahiotis C, Silikas N. Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. In: Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. Vol 18. 2007.
[10]	Mundim FM, Garcia L da FR, Pires-de-Souza F de CP. Effect of staining solutions and repolishing on color stability of direct composites. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010; 18(3): 249-254.
[11]	Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: An in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent. 2013; 38(6): 618-625.
[12]	Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, Sabbagh J, Devaux J, Leloup G. Science Direct Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J Dent. 2014; 42(8): 993-1000.
[13]	Ferracane JL. Resin composite - State of the art. Dent Mater. 2011.
[14]	Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixon P. Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: A review. Br Dent J. 2017; 222(5): 337-344.
[15]	Stawarczyk B, Sener B, Trottmann A, Roos M, Ozcan M, Hämmerle CHF. Discoloration of manually fabricated resins and industrially fabricated CAD/CAM blocks versus glass-ceramic: effect of storage media, duration, and subsequent polishing. Dent Mater J. 2012; 31(3): 377-383.
[16]	Ruse ND, Sadoun MJ. Resin-composite blocks for dental CAD/CAM applications. J Dent Res. 2014; 93(12): 1232-1234.
[17]	Rocca GT, Bonnafous F, Rizcalla N, Krejci I, Medicine D. A technique to improve the esthetic aspects of CAD / CAM composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2010; 104(4): 273-275.
[18]	Hahnel S, Rosentritt M, Handel G, Bürgers R. Surface characterization of dental ceramics and initial streptococcal adhesion in vitro. Dent Mater. 2009; 25(8).
[19]	Frau Sancho S, Espadas Dominguez M, De Clemente-Rodriguez de Rivera E, Teixidor Olmo I, Arranz Obispo C, Lopez Lopez J. Peri-implant diseases: diagnosis and treatment. Med Oral Patol Oral y Cir Bucal. 2015.
[20]	Koizumi H, Saiki O, Nogawa H, Hiraba H, Okazaki T, Matsumura H. Surface roughness and gloss of current CAD/CAM resin composites before and after toothbrush abrasion. Dent Mater J. 2015; 34(6).
[21]	Mörmann WH, Stawarczyk B, Ender A, Sener B, Attin T, Mehl A. Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: Two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013; 20: 113-125.
[22]	Stawarczyk B, Frevert K, Ender A, Roos M, Sener B, Wimmer T. Comparison of four monolithic zirconia materials with conventional ones: Contrast ratio, grain size, four-point flexural strength and two-body wear. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016; 59.
[23]	Mörmann WH, Stawarczyk B, Ender A, Sener B, Attin T, Mehl A. Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: Two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013; 20: 113-125.
[24]	Şen N, Tuncelli B, Göller G. Surface deterioration of monolithic CAD/CAM restorative materials after artificial abrasive toothbrushing. J Adv Prosthodont. 2018; 10(4).
[25]	Koizumi H, Saiki O, Nogawa H, Hiraba H, Okazaki T, Matsumura H. Surface roughness and gloss of current CAD/CAM resin composites before and after toothbrush abrasion. Dent Mater J. 2015; 34(6): 881-887.
[26]	Rosentritt M, Hahnel S, Gröger G, Mühlfriedel B, Bürgers R, Handel G. Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to various dental materials in a laminar flow chamber system. J Biomed Mater Res - Part B Appl Biomater. 2008; 86(1).
[27]	Awad D, Stawarczyk B, Liebermann A, Ilie N. Translucency of esthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials and composite resins with respect to thickness and surface roughness. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113(6).
[28]	Fasbinder DJ, Neiva GF. Surface Evaluation of Polishing Techniques for New Resilient CAD/CAM Restorative Materials. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2016; 28(1).
[29]	Vo DT, Arola D, Romberg E, Driscoll CF, Jabra-Rizk MA, Masri R. Adherence of Streptococcus mutans on lithium disilicate porcelain specimens. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114(5): 696-701.
[30]	Meier R, Hauser-Gerspach I, Lüthy H, Meyer J. Adhesion of oral streptococci to all-ceramics dental restorative materials in vitro. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008; 19(10): 3249-3253.
[31]	Zarone F, Russo S, Sorrentino R. From porcelain-fused-to-metal to zirconia: Clinical and experimental considerations. Dent Mater. 2011; 27(1): 83-96.
[32]	Milleding P, Gerdes S, Holmberg K, Karlsson S. Surface energy of non-corroded and corroded dental ceramic materials before and after contact with salivary proteins. Eur J Oral Sci. 1999; 107(5).
[33]	Ertaş E, Güler AU, Yücel AÇ, Köprülü H, Güler E. Color stability of resin composites after immersion in different drinks. Dent Mater J. 2006.