N Vimala¹*, Rashmi Sharma², Gayatri Pendse³, Nikita Toprani⁴, Lalitagauri Mandke⁵, and Mandeep Duarah⁶

¹Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, DY University Patil School of Dentistry, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
²Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, DYPatil University School of Dentistry, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
³Associate Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, DYPatil School of Dentistry, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
⁴Lecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry, DYPatil School of Dentistry, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
⁵Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, DYPatil School of Dentistry, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra
⁶Private Practitioner, DYPatil University School od Dentistry,, Navi Mumbai., Maharastra

*Corresponding Author: N Vimala, Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, DYPatil University School of Dentistry, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Received: December 22, 2022; Published: December 30, 2022

Abstract

Objective: The study was done to evaluate the antibacterial effects of three fluoride releasing restorative materials, namely seventh generation dentin bonding agent (Futurabond® DC, Voco, Germany), resin modified glass ionomer cement (GC Fuji II™ LC, GC Corporation, Tokyo) and Nanoionomer (Ketac™ N100) against Lactobacillus acidophilus [Microbial Type Culture Collection, 10307] and Streptococcus mutans [Microbial Type Culture Collection, 497].

Materials and Methods: The antibacterial effect was analysed using agar diffusion test. The experimental groups were three fluoride releasing restorative materials and control against Lactobacillus acidophilus (MTCC 10307) (Group A) and Streptococcus mutans (MTCC 497) (Group B). The wells in petri dishes were filled with chlorhexidine, resin modified glass ionomer, nanoionomer, bonding agent and were dropped with micropipettes in paper disks, blown dry and light cured. The culture plates were incubated for 24h at 37°c. The antibacterial effect was checked after 24h, 48h and 7days in triplicates.

Results and Conclusion: The results were collected, and statistically analyzed using the ANOVA test to determine the difference between the mean diameters of the inhibition zone observed. All the three restorative materials showed antibacterial activity against Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus. The antibacterial effect for resin modified glass ionomer and nanoionomer decreased over a period of 7 days whereas for dentin bonding agent there was an increase in the antibacterial effect seen from 24 hours to 48 hours.

Keywords: Antibacterial; Fluoride; Restorative; Lactobacillus acidophilus; Streptococcus mutans

References

1. MP Prasad and Maulik A Maradia. “Antibacterial activity of Conventional and Modified Glass Ionomer cement against Streptococcus mutans”. Journal of Applied Biology and Biotechnology03 (2014): 017-020.
2. Sina Klai., et al. “The Scientific World Journal (2014).
3. Dimitrios Dionysopoulosa Thessaloniki. “The Effect of fluoride-releasing restorative materials on inhibition of secondary caries formation”. Research review Fluoride3 (2014): 258-265.
4. S Konde., et al. “Clinical evaluation of a new art material: Nanoparticulated resin-modified glass ionomer cement”. Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry 2 (2012).
5. Monika Łukomska-Szymańska., et al. “Antibacterial activity of eight dentine bonding systems”. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences6 (2014): 48-54.
6. Kavita Hotwani., et al. “Antibacterial effects of hybrid tooth-colored restorative materials against Streptococcus mutans: An in vitro analysis”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry 4 (2013): 319-322.
7. Ruchi Arora and Murali H Rao. “Comparative evaluation of the antibacterial effects of four dentine bonding systems: An in vitro study”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry5 (2013).
8. Tarasingh P., et al. “Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomers, Compomers and Giomers - An Invitro Study”. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 7 (2015): 85-87.
9. Swathi Amin., et al. “Comparative evaluation of antibacterial activity of total-etch and self-etch adhesive systems: An ex-vitro study”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry 3 (2014): 266-270.
10. Brenda Paula Figueiredo de Almeida Gomes., et al. “In vitro evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of five root canal sealers”. Brazilian Dental Journal 1 (2004).
11. Vaidyanathan M., et al. “Antimicrobial properties of dentine bonding agents determined using in vitro and ex vivo methods”. Journal of Dental Research 7 (2009): 514-521.
12. Esteves CM., et al. “Antibacterial activity of various self-etching adhesive systems against oral streptococci”. Operative Dentistry 4 (2010): 448-453.
13. Sumitha Upadhyay., et al. “Comparison of the Amount of Fluoride Release from Nanofilled Resin Modified Glass Ionomer, Conventional and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cements”. Journal of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran 2 (2013).
14. de Araujo FB., et al. “Fluoride release from fluoride containing materials”. Operative Dentistry 5 (1996): 185-190.
15. Diaz-Arnold AM., et al. “Topical fluoride and glass ionomer micro-hardness”. American Journal of Dentistry 3 (1995): 134-136.
16. Marco Aurélio Benini., et al. “Fluoride release profile of a nanofilled resin-modified glass ionomer cement”. Brazilian Dental Journal 4 (2011).

Citation

Citation: Vimala N., et al. “Antibacterial Efficacy of Three Fluoride-Releasing Restorative Materials Against Lactobacillus acidophilus and Streptococcus mutans: An In vitro Analysis".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 7.1 (2023): 121-126.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2023 Vimala N., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.