OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the antimicrobial effect of papain-based gel (Papacárie/ P) followed by self-etching adhesive systems with MDPB monomer (Clearfil Protect Bond/ PB) and without (Clearfil SE Bond/ Cl) on Streptococcus mutans (Sm) and Lactobacillus casei (Lc). STUDY DESIGN: The dentin of twenty human teeth was exposed to prepare four cylindrical cavities in each tooth. The cavities were incubated with Sm or Lc. One cavity from each tooth served as contamination control (positive control group); the other three were treated with P, P+CL and P+PB. The cavities were sealed and after 72 h, dentin samples were collected and microbial cultivation was performed. Microbial count was undertaken (CFUs/mg) according to the morphological characteristics for Sm and Lc. Analysis of variance and Tukey's test were applied (α=5%). RESULTS: For Sm, groups P+Cl and P+PB had lower microbial count than group P (no statistical differences between P+Cl and P+PB). For Lc, group P+Cl had microbial count similar to group P. There was statistical difference between cavities treated with P and P+PB but none between groups P+Cl and P+PB. After using P, both self-etching adhesives showed antimicrobial potential, although Clearfil Protect Bond proved better against Lc. CONCLUSIONS: Both self-etching adhesives used after application of Papacárie showed antimicrobial potential, although Clearfil Protect Bond proved more effective against Lactobacillus casei.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the antimicrobial effect of papain-based gel (Papacárie/ P) followed by self-etching adhesive systems with MDPB monomer (Clearfil Protect Bond/ PB) and without (Clearfil SE Bond/ Cl) on Streptococcus mutans (Sm) and Lactobacillus casei (Lc). STUDY DESIGN: The dentin of twenty human teeth was exposed to prepare four cylindrical cavities in each tooth. The cavities were incubated with Sm or Lc. One cavity from each tooth served as contamination control (positive control group); the other three were treated with P, P+CL and P+PB. The cavities were sealed and after 72 h, dentin samples were collected and microbial cultivation was performed. Microbial count was undertaken (CFUs/mg) according to the morphological characteristics for Sm and Lc. Analysis of variance and Tukey's test were applied (α=5%). RESULTS: For Sm, groups P+Cl and P+PB had lower microbial count than group P (no statistical differences between P+Cl and P+PB). For Lc, group P+Cl had microbial count similar to group P. There was statistical difference between cavities treated with P andP+PB but none between groups P+Cl and P+PB. After using P, both self-etching adhesives showed antimicrobial potential, although Clearfil Protect Bond proved better against Lc. CONCLUSIONS: Both self-etching adhesives used after application of Papacárie showed antimicrobial potential, although Clearfil Protect Bond proved more effective against Lactobacillus casei.