Gloria Cazzaniga1, Marco Ottobelli1, Andrei C Ionescu1, Gaetano Paolone2, Enrico Gherlone2, Jack L Ferracane3, Eugenio Brambilla4. 1. Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopedic Institute, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 2. Dental Clinic - Restorative Dentistry, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopedic Institute, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: eugenio.brambilla@unimi.it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of surface treatments of different resin-based composites (RBCs) on S. mutans biofilm formation. METHODS: 4 RBCs (microhybrid, nanohybrid, nanofilled, bulk-filled) and 6 finishing-polishing (F/P) procedures (open-air light-curing, light-curing against Mylar strip, aluminum oxide discs, one-step rubber point, diamond bur, multi-blade carbide bur) were evaluated. Surface roughness (SR) (n=5/group), gloss (n=5/group), scanning electron microscopy morphological analysis (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) (n=3/group), and S. mutans biofilm formation (n=16/group) were assessed. EDS analysis was repeated after the biofilm assay. A morphological evaluation of S. mutans biofilm was also performed using confocal laser-scanning microscopy (CLSM) (n=2/group). The data were analyzed using Wilcoxon (SR, gloss) and two-way ANOVA with Tukey as post-hoc tests (EDS, biofilm formation). RESULTS: F/P procedures as well as RBCs significantly influenced SR and gloss. While F/P procedures did not significantly influence S. mutans biofilm formation, a significant influence of RBCs on the same parameter was found. Different RBCs showed different surface elemental composition. Both F/P procedures and S. mutans biofilm formation significantly modified this parameter. CONCLUSIONS: The tested F/P procedures significantly influenced RBCs surface properties but did not significantly affect S. mutans biofilm formation. The significant influence of the different RBCs tested on S. mutans biofilm formation suggests that material characteristics and composition play a greater role than SR. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: F/P procedures of RBCs may unexpectedly play a minor role compared to that of the restoration material itself in bacterial colonization.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of surface treatments of different resin-based composites (RBCs) on S. mutans biofilm formation. METHODS: 4 RBCs (microhybrid, nanohybrid, nanofilled, bulk-filled) and 6 finishing-polishing (F/P) procedures (open-air light-curing, light-curing against Mylar strip, aluminum oxide discs, one-step rubber point, diamond bur, multi-blade carbide bur) were evaluated. Surface roughness (SR) (n=5/group), gloss (n=5/group), scanning electron microscopy morphological analysis (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) (n=3/group), and S. mutans biofilm formation (n=16/group) were assessed. EDS analysis was repeated after the biofilm assay. A morphological evaluation of S. mutans biofilm was also performed using confocal laser-scanning microscopy (CLSM) (n=2/group). The data were analyzed using Wilcoxon (SR, gloss) and two-way ANOVA with Tukey as post-hoc tests (EDS, biofilm formation). RESULTS: F/P procedures as well as RBCs significantly influenced SR and gloss. While F/P procedures did not significantly influence S. mutans biofilm formation, a significant influence of RBCs on the same parameter was found. Different RBCs showed different surface elemental composition. Both F/P procedures and S. mutans biofilm formation significantly modified this parameter. CONCLUSIONS: The tested F/P procedures significantly influenced RBCs surface properties but did not significantly affect S. mutans biofilm formation. The significant influence of the different RBCs tested on S. mutans biofilm formation suggests that material characteristics and composition play a greater role than SR. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: F/P procedures of RBCs may unexpectedly play a minor role compared to that of the restoration material itself in bacterial colonization.
Authors: Ana P Fugolin; Adam Dobson; Vincent Huynh; Wilbes Mbiya; Oscar Navarro; Cristiane M Franca; Matthew Logan; Justin L Merritt; Jack L Ferracane; Carmem S Pfeifer Journal: Acta Biomater Date: 2019-09-28 Impact factor: 8.947
Authors: Andrei C Ionescu; Eugenio Brambilla; Francesco Azzola; Marco Ottobelli; Gaia Pellegrini; Luca A Francetti Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Adriano Casaglia; Maria Antonietta Cassini; Roberta Condò; Flavia Iaculli; Loredana Cerroni Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Małgorzata Staszczyk; Anna Jurczak; Marcin Magacz; Dorota Kościelniak; Iwona Gregorczyk-Maga; Małgorzata Jamka-Kasprzyk; Magdalena Kępisty; Iwona Kołodziej; Magdalena Kukurba-Setkowicz; Wirginia Krzyściak Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 3.390