P Tarasingh1, J Sharada Reddy2, K Suhasini3, I Hemachandrika1. 1. Assistant Professor, Department of Pedodontics & Preventive Dentistry, Government, Dental College & Hospital , Hyderabad, India . 2. Professor and HOD, Department of Pedodontics & Preventive Dentistry, Government, Dental College & Hospital , Hyderabad, India . 3. Associate Professor, Department of Pedodontics & Preventive Dentistry, Government, Dental College & Hospital , Hyderabad, India .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dental restorative materials, especially those applied in direct contact with the contaminated substrate, should have appropriate antibacterial activity in order to prevent residual bacteria from continuing their metabolic activity in addition to impairing new bacteria from reaching the tooth-restoration interface. AIM: To determine the antibacterial efficacy of three different restorative materials against the common cariogenic microorganism i.e., Streptococcus mutans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different restorative materials were evaluated in this study: Giomer (Beautifil), Compomer (F2000) & Resin modified Glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) for their anti microbial efficacy against Streptococcus mutans by standard agar diffusion method and zones of inhibition for each restorative material were calculated. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Inhibition zones around each restorative material were measured and values were subjected to one-way ANOVA with least square difference (LSD) Post-hoc test. RESULTS: The mean inhibitory zones for Resin modified glass ionomers, Giomers & Compomers ranged from 10.1 - 6.90mm. Fuji II LC exhibited the highest mean inhibitory zone of 10.1 ± 1.97 for S.mutans. Beautifil exhibited mean inhibitory zone of 8.20 ± 1.62, whereas F2000 showed the least mean inhibitory zone of 6.90 ± 1.29. CONCLUSION: Based on the inhibitory zones of three restorative materials, Fuji II LC is recommended as the best restorative material among the three tested restorative materials.
BACKGROUND: Dental restorative materials, especially those applied in direct contact with the contaminated substrate, should have appropriate antibacterial activity in order to prevent residual bacteria from continuing their metabolic activity in addition to impairing new bacteria from reaching the tooth-restoration interface. AIM: To determine the antibacterial efficacy of three different restorative materials against the common cariogenic microorganism i.e., Streptococcus mutans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different restorative materials were evaluated in this study: Giomer (Beautifil), Compomer (F2000) & Resin modified Glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) for their anti microbial efficacy against Streptococcus mutans by standard agar diffusion method and zones of inhibition for each restorative material were calculated. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Inhibition zones around each restorative material were measured and values were subjected to one-way ANOVA with least square difference (LSD) Post-hoc test. RESULTS: The mean inhibitory zones for Resin modified glass ionomers, Giomers & Compomers ranged from 10.1 - 6.90mm. Fuji II LC exhibited the highest mean inhibitory zone of 10.1 ± 1.97 for S.mutans. Beautifil exhibited mean inhibitory zone of 8.20 ± 1.62, whereas F2000 showed the least mean inhibitory zone of 6.90 ± 1.29. CONCLUSION: Based on the inhibitory zones of three restorative materials, Fuji II LC is recommended as the best restorative material among the three tested restorative materials.
Entities:
Keywords:
Antibacterial activity; Hybrid restorative materials; S. mutans
Authors: Carlos Alberto de Souza Costa; Elisa Maria Aparecida Giro; Alexandre Batista Lopes do Nascimento; Hilcia Mezzalira Teixeira; Josimeri Hebling Journal: Dent Mater Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 5.304
Authors: Hein De Backer; Georges Van Maele; Nathalie De Moor; Linda Van den Berghe; Jan De Boever Journal: Int J Prosthodont Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.681
Authors: R Condò; L Cerroni; G Pasquantonio; M Mancini; A Pecora; A Convertino; V Mussi; A Rinaldi; L Maiolo Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Mara Elena Rusnac; Cristina Gasparik; Alexandra Iulia Irimie; Alexandru Graţian Grecu; Anca Ştefania Mesaroş; Diana Dudea Journal: Med Pharm Rep Date: 2019-04-25