Bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to provisional fixed prosthodontic material

J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Dec;98(6):461-9. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60146-2.

Abstract

Statement of problem: Bacterial adhesion and formation of dental plaque on provisional fixed prosthodontic materials results in gingival inflammation and secondary caries.

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare 10 commonly used provisional fixed prosthodontic materials (2 acrylic polymethyl methacrylates, 2 improved methacrylates, and 6 bisacrylate composite resins), based on their susceptibility to adhere to Streptococcus mutans, and examine the influence of surface roughness and hydrophobicity.

Material and methods: Surface roughness was assessed by perthometer and hydrophobicity by contact angle measurements. Streptococcus mutans suspension was incubated with 15 disk-shaped specimens for each material (10 x 2 mm) and examined with the fluorescence dye, Alamar Blue/resazurin, and an automated multidetection reader. Glass and the veneering composite resin, Sinfony, served as controls. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U-test in combination with the Bonferroni adjustment. Additionally, scanning electron micrographs were made.

Results: Median surface roughness values ranged between 0.04 microm and 0.08 microm, and median contact angles between 46.5 and 71 degrees. High relative fluorescence intensities (>10,000) were found for Snap, UniFast LC, and CronMix K plus, moderate values (5000-10,000) for Trim, Temphase, Structur Premium, and PreVISION CB, and lowest fluorescence intensities (<5000) were found for Cronsin, Protemp 3 Garant, and Luxatemp. Scanning electron micrographs displayed streptococcal monolayers on all investigated surfaces, indicating initial bacterial adhesion.

Conclusions: The quantity of bacterial adhesion differed significantly among the assessed provisional materials. A correlation between bacterial adhesion and surface roughness or hydrophobicity was not confirmed. Bisacrylate composite resins and acrylic polymethyl methacrylates had significantly lower adhesion potentials than improved methacrylates.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Acrylates / chemistry*
  • Acrylic Resins / chemistry
  • Bacterial Adhesion*
  • Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate / chemistry
  • Composite Resins / chemistry
  • Dental Materials / chemistry*
  • Fluorescent Dyes
  • Glass / chemistry
  • Humans
  • Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions
  • Indicators and Reagents
  • Materials Testing
  • Methacrylates / chemistry
  • Methylmethacrylates / chemistry
  • Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
  • Oxazines
  • Polymethacrylic Acids / chemistry
  • Polymethyl Methacrylate / chemistry
  • Streptococcus mutans / physiology*
  • Surface Properties
  • Xanthenes

Substances

  • Acrylates
  • Acrylic Resins
  • Composite Resins
  • Dental Materials
  • Fluorescent Dyes
  • Indicators and Reagents
  • Methacrylates
  • Methylmethacrylates
  • Oxazines
  • Polymethacrylic Acids
  • Sinfony composite resin
  • Temphase
  • Xanthenes
  • luxatemp
  • resazurin
  • vinyl ethyl methacrylate
  • Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate
  • Polymethyl Methacrylate
  • Protemp
  • G-C Unifast LC