Reshma Karkera¹*, Beena Antony² and Jalis Aaisha Khan¹

¹Department of Prosthodontics and Oral Implantology, A. J Institute of Dental Sciences, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, India
²Department of Microbiology, Father Muller Medical College, Sciences, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, India

*Corresponding Author: Reshma Karkera, Prosthodontics and Oral Implantology, A. J Institute of Dental Sciences, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka, India.

Received: November 29, 2023; Published: December 16, 2023

Abstract

Aims and Background: Leading contributing factor to failure of crown is frequently due to dental caries and adhesion of microorganisms mainly by Streptococcus mutans (S.M.), Lactobacillus Acidophilus (L.A.) and Porphyromonas Gingivalis (P.G.) in over cavity (O.C.). Therefore the goal of our study was to evaluate and compare the effect of antibacterial property (ABP) of 5 different luting cements (i.e. ZOE, NON- Eugenol (N-E), Dual Cure (D.C.), Polycarboxylate (P.C.) and Self Adhesive Resin (SAR) Cement) on L.A., P.G. and S.M. with zone of inhibition (ZOI) method.

Materials and Methods: A total of 100 patients were included. A saliva sample was collected from each patient, and three different oral bacterial species were extracted and analyzed using the MALDI-TOFMS method. Further 50 patients were treated with neem bark (N.B.) concentrations of 20mg, 40 mg, and 60 mg in 5 different dental luting cements (D.L.C.), and the remaining 50 were treated with 5 different D.L.C. only. Result: Group1, ZOE cement, N-E and SAR cement with N.B. for S.M., and P.G. showed concentration differences after anova testing. Whereas, D.C., P.C. cement for S.M. showed no difference. In Group 2, all three bacteria showed high differences in interaction with various D.L.C.

Conclusion: We come to conclude that there was a significant increase in AB efficacy against 3 bacterias on addition of neem bark at different concentration to D.L.C.

Clinical significance: In order to enhance the A.B. effectiveness against the three predominant intraoral bacteria, it is recommended to incorporate N.B. concentrations which could be 20mg to 60mg into our luting cements for good routine dental practice.

Keywords:Streptococcus mutans; Lactobacillus acidophilus and Porphyromonas gingivalis. Zone of Inhibition, Antibacterial Property

References

1. Feroz SM., et al. “Comparative Evaluation of Antibacterial Effect of Dental Luting Cements on Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus: An In vitro Study”. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice12 (2016): 973-977.
2. Schwartzman B., et al. “Antimicrobial action of dental cements”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry3 (1980): 309-312.
3. Williams VD. “Factors that affect the adhesion of composite to enamel”. General Dentistry6 (1982): 477-480.
4. Smith DC. “Dental cements: current status and future prospects”. Dental Clinics of North America4 (1983): 763-792.
5. Jay P. “Lactobacillus acidophilus and dental caries”. American Journal of Public Health and the Nations Health6 (1983): 759-761.
6. Vermeersch G., et al. “Antibacterial activity of glass-ionomer cements, compomers and resin composites: relationship between acidity and material setting phase”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation5 (2005): 368-374.
7. Loesche WJ. “Role of Streptococcus mutans in human dental decay”. Microbiological Reviews4 (1986): 353-80.
8. De Soet JJ., et al. “Acidogenesis by oral streptococci at different pH values”. Caries Research1 (1989): 14-17.
9. Van Houte J., et al. “In vitro acidogenic potential and mutans streptococci of human smooth-surface plaque associated with initial caries lesions and sound enamel”. Journal of Dental Research12 (1991): 1497-1502.
10. Brukiene V., et al. “Dental restorations quality in Lithuanian adolescents”. Stomatologija, Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal 4 (2005): 103-109.
11. Konradsson K., et al. “Mutans streptococci and lactobacilli in plaque on a leucite-reinforced dental ceramic and on a calcium aluminate cement”. Clinical Oral Investigations 10 (2006): 175-180.
12. Daugela P., et al. “Antibacterial potential of contemporary dental luting cements”. Stomatologija 1 (2008): 16-21.
13. Imazato S., et al. “Bactericidal effect of dentin primer containing antibacterial monomer methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide (MDPB) against bacteria in human carious dentin”. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation4 (2001): 314-319.
14. Pameijer CH and Nilner K. “Long term clinical evaluation of three luting materials”. Swedish Dental Journal1-2 (1994): 59-67.
15. Williams VD. “Factors that affect the adhesion of composite to enamel”. General Dentistry6 (1982): 477-480.
16. Anusavice KJ. “Dental casting alloys”. Phillip's Science of Dental Materials (1996): 423-459.
17. Smith DC. “Dental cements: current status and future prospects”. Dental Clinics of North America4 (1983): 763-792.
18. Craig RG. “Editor. Restorative dental materials”. Mosby (1980).
19. Sham AS., et al. “Color stability of provisional prosthodontic materials”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry5 (2004): 447-452.
20. Rosenstiel SF., et al. “Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics”. St. Louis. Mosby, Inc 2001 (2001): 380-416.
21. Shillingburg HT., et al. “Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics”. Chicago, IL, USA: Quintessence Publishing Company (1997).
22. Şen D., et al. “The effect of two polishing pastes on the surface roughness of bis-acryl composite and methacrylate-based resins”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry5 (2022): 527-532.
23. Maalhagh-Fard A., et al. “Evaluation of surface finish and polish of eight provisional restorative materials using acrylic bur and abrasive disk with and without pumice”. Operative Dentistry6 (2003): 734-739.
24. Heintze SD., et al. “Surface roughness and gloss of dental materials as a function of force and polishing time in vitro”. Dental Materials2 (2006): 146-165.
25. Tran SD and Rudney JD. “Multiplex PCR using conserved and species-specific 16S rRNA gene primers for simultaneous detection of Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans and Porphyromonas gingivalis”. Journal of Clinical Microbiology11 (1996): 2674-2678.
26. Lamont RJ and Jenkinson HF. “Life below the gum line: pathogenic mechanisms of Porphyromonas gingivalis”. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews4 (1998): 1244-1263.
27. Holt SC., et al. “Virulence factors of Porphyromonas gingivalis”. Periodontology 20001 (1999): 168-238.
28. Andrian E., et al. “Porphyromonas gingivalis-epithelial cell interactions in periodontitis”. Journal of Dental Research 5 (2006): 392-403.
29. Quirynen M and Bollen CM. “The influence of surface roughness and surface‐free energy on supra‐and subgingival plaque formation in man: A review of the literature”. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 1 (1995): 1-4.
30. Collado MC., et al. “Postbiotics: facts and open questions. A position paper on the need for a consensus definition”. Beneficial Microbes7 (2019): 711-719.
31. O’Grady J., et al. “Dietary fibre in the era of microbiome science”. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics5 (2019): 506-515.
32. Albuquerque‐Souza E., et al. “Probiotics alter the immune response of gingival epithelial cells challenged by Porphyromonas gingivalis”. Journal of Periodontal Research2 (2019): 115-127.
33. Bueno MR., et al. “Lactobacilli attenuate the effect of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans infection in gingival epithelial cells”. Frontiers in Microbiology 13 (2022): 846192.
34. Vale GC., et al. “Effect of probiotics Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus on antibacterial response gene transcription of human peripheral monocytes”. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins 18 (2021): 1-1.
35. Han L., et al. “Evaluation of physical properties and surface degradation of self-adhesive resin cements”. Dental Materials Journal6 (2007): 906-914.
36. Wang Y and Spencer P. “Continuing etching of an all-in-one adhesive in wet dentin tubules”. Journal of Dental Research4 (2005): 350-354.
37. Estrela C., et al. “Silver nanoparticles in resin luting cements: Antibacterial and physiochemical properties”. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry 4 (2016): e415.
38. Zortuk M., et al. “Bacterial adhesion of porphyromonas gingivalis on provisional fixed prosthetic materials”. Dental Research Journal1 (2010): 35.
39. Slots J., et al. “Relationship between some subgingival bacteria and periodontal pocket depth and gain or loss of periodontal attachment after treatment of adult periodontitis”. Journal of Clinical Periodontology7 (1985): 540-52.
40. Takeuchi Y., et al. “Treponema socranskii, Treponema denticola, and Porphyromonas gingivalis are associated with severity of periodontal tissue destruction”. Journal of Periodontology10 (2010): 1354-1363.

Citation

Citation: Reshma Karkera., et al. “Antibacterial Efficacy of Different Luting Cements on Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus acidophilus and Porphyromonas gingivalis".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 8.1 (2024): 44-50.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Reshma Karkera., 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.