Comparison of Antibacterial Activity of Self-adhesive Flowable Composite, Microhybrid Flowable Composite and Self-curing Glass Ionomer Against Streptococcus Mutans: An In Vitro Study
Authors
Abstract:
Background and purpose: Antibacterial properties of restorative materials are of great advantage as they control the progression of tooth decay. The use of self-adhesive composite materials has some benefits such as easier application and reduced treatment time. Because the antibacterial properties of restorative materials can play an important role in preventing secondary decay, especially in cervical restorations, this study was designed to evaluate the in vitro antibacterial activity of self-adhesive flowable composite against Streptococcus mutans. Materials and methods: An in vitro study was performed using 9 discs for each composite and glass ionomer group. The discs were prepared in three groups: micro-hybrid flowable composite samples, self-adhesive flowable composite samples, and self-curing glass ionomer samples. Direct contact test was used to compare the antibacterial properties of the discs. Data collection was done by direct contact test and visual counting of grown bacterial colonies. Data were recorded in a checklist developed according to the objectives of the study and analyzed using One-way ANOVA and Independent T-test in SPSS V22. Results: Findings showed that the antibacterial effect of glass ionomer was greater than that of flowable micro-hybrid composite and self-adhesive flowable composite. Also, a significant difference was observed between the antimicrobial activity of flowable microhybrid composite and self-adhesive flowable composite against Streptococcus mutans (P<0.05). Conclusion: Glass ionomer and self-adhesive composite have a higher antibacterial effect against Streptococcus mutans, so they can be used as alternatives to treat tooth decay
similar resources
Flowable composite an alternative orthodontic bonding adhesive: an in vitro study.
OBJECTIVE To determine the clinical applicability of Ormocer based fowable adhesive (Admira fow) in comparison with BisGMA based adhesive (Transbond XT) and Ormocer based packable adhesive (Admira). MATERIALS AND METHODS Sixty human premolars, divided into group I (n = 20) Transbond XT, group II (n = 20) Admira and group III (n = 20) Admira fow were bonded with metal brackets using adhesives....
full textShear Bond Strength of Self-Adhering Flowable Composite and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer to Two Pulp Capping Materials
INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of a self-adhering flowable composite (SAFC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) to mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement. METHODS AND MATERIALS A total of 72 acrylic blocks with a central hole (4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth) were prepared. The holes were filled with MTA (su...
full textDoes the use of a novel self-adhesive flowable composite reduce nanoleakage?
OBJECTIVE The aim of the study reported here was to evaluate the performance of a self-adhesive flowable composite and two self-etching adhesive systems, when subjected to cyclic loading, in preventing the nanoleakage of Class V restorations. METHODS Wedge-shape Class V cavities were prepared (4×2×2 mm [length × width × depth]) on the buccal surfaces of 90 sound human premolars. Cavities were...
full textMicroleakage of Flowable Composite Restorations
Author’s response I totally agree with comments by Pitak-Arnnop et al which emphasizes the importance of clinical relevance (though not statistically significant) and 95% CI confidence interval in today's publication process this change of mindset had evolved over many years of education on research & biostatistics. I must clarify that the present article is highlighting the well-known bias of ...
full textRadiopacity of flowable resin composite
Aim: The aim of this study was to measure the radiopacity of seven flowable composite resins (FCRs). Methods: The radiopacity values of Tetric EvoFlow®A3 (Ivoclar Vivadent), PermaFlo®A1 (Ultradent), Filtek Supreme XT®A3 (3M ESPE), wave®A3 (SDI), StarFlow®A2 (Danville Materials), els flow®A3op (Saremco Dental AG) and SYNERGY Nano Formula®A2/B2 (Coltène Whaledent) were determined with reference t...
full textMy Resources
Journal title
volume 32 issue 218
pages 13- 21
publication date 2023-03
By following a journal you will be notified via email when a new issue of this journal is published.
Hosted on Doprax cloud platform doprax.com
copyright © 2015-2023