Maria Salem Ibrahim1, Isadora Martini Garcia2, Anmar Kensara3, Abdulrahman A Balhaddad4, Fabrício Mezzomo Collares5, Mary Ann Williams6, Ahmed S Ibrahim7, Nancy J Lin8, Michael D Weir9, Hockin H K Xu10, Mary Anne S Melo11. 1. Ph.D. Program in Dental Biomedical Sciences, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; MPH Program, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: msibrahim@umaryland.edu. 2. Division of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, Department of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; Dental Materials Laboratory, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, 90035-003, Brazil. Electronic address: isadora.garcia@ufrgs.br. 3. Ph.D. Program in Dental Biomedical Sciences, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Umm Al Qura University, Makkah, 24381, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: akensara@umaryland.edu. 4. Ph.D. Program in Dental Biomedical Sciences, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA; Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: abalhaddad@umaryland.edu. 5. Dental Materials Laboratory, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, 90035-003, Brazil. Electronic address: fabricio.collares@ufrgs.br. 6. Health Sciences and Human Services Library, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. Electronic address: mwilliams@hshsl.umaryland.edu. 7. Medical Microbiology Department, Health Monitoring Centers, Ministry of Health, Jeddah 21176, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: ahsibrahim@moh.gov.sa. 8. Biosystems and Biomaterials Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA. Electronic address: nancy.lin@nist.gov. 9. MPH Program, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; Division of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, Department of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. Electronic address: michael.weir@umaryland.edu. 10. MPH Program, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; Division of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, Department of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. Electronic address: hxu@umaryland.edu. 11. MPH Program, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; Division of Operative Dentistry, Department of General Dentistry, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA. Electronic address: mmelo@umaryland.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify antibacterial additives and screening/assessment approaches used to evaluate the antibacterial activity of resin-based restorative dental materials containing these additives. DATA: In vitro studies that compared the antibacterial effects of resin-based restorative dental materials with and without antibacterial additives were screened. Risk bias was assessed, and the following data were extracted: antibacterial additive, parental dental material, curing mode, bacterial growth outcome assessment, samples used as a substrate for bacterial growth, inoculum complexity, and culture time as an indicator of biofilm maturity. SOURCE: Arksey and O'Malley's five stages framework using Medline (OVID), EMBASE, and Scopus (Elsevier) databases guided this review. STUDY SELECTION: From 6503 studies initially identified, 348 studies were considered eligible for full-text screening, and 153 were included for data extraction. Almost all studies have a high sampling bias related to both sample size and blindness. Quaternary ammonium monomers were the most investigated additive (45 %), and the most prevailing parental material was resin composite (49 %). There was extensive methodological heterogeneity among the studies for outcome assessment with the majority using resin composite disks (78 %), mono-species Streptococcus mutans as the inoculum (54 %), and a relatively short period of biofilm growth (≤24 h). CONCLUSION: The findings herein present the urgent need for improved biological efficacy studies in this important and exciting field. There is a need for efforts to improve study designs to mimic the oral environment in vivo and to develop standardized methods to help understand and optimize these materials. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Most studies that incorporate antibacterial additives into resin-based materials claim promising results by bacterial reduction. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to significant variation in the methods applied for quantifying bacterial growth, the frequent lack of complexity in the biofilms, and the often-short duration of biofilm growth.
OBJECTIVES: To identify antibacterial additives and screening/assessment approaches used to evaluate the antibacterial activity of resin-based restorative dental materials containing these additives. DATA: In vitro studies that compared the antibacterial effects of resin-based restorative dental materials with and without antibacterial additives were screened. Risk bias was assessed, and the following data were extracted: antibacterial additive, parental dental material, curing mode, bacterial growth outcome assessment, samples used as a substrate for bacterial growth, inoculum complexity, and culture time as an indicator of biofilm maturity. SOURCE: Arksey and O'Malley's five stages framework using Medline (OVID), EMBASE, and Scopus (Elsevier) databases guided this review. STUDY SELECTION: From 6503 studies initially identified, 348 studies were considered eligible for full-text screening, and 153 were included for data extraction. Almost all studies have a high sampling bias related to both sample size and blindness. Quaternary ammonium monomers were the most investigated additive (45 %), and the most prevailing parental material was resin composite (49 %). There was extensive methodological heterogeneity among the studies for outcome assessment with the majority using resin composite disks (78 %), mono-species Streptococcus mutans as the inoculum (54 %), and a relatively short period of biofilm growth (≤24 h). CONCLUSION: The findings herein present the urgent need for improved biological efficacy studies in this important and exciting field. There is a need for efforts to improve study designs to mimic the oral environment in vivo and to develop standardized methods to help understand and optimize these materials. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Most studies that incorporate antibacterial additives into resin-based materials claim promising results by bacterial reduction. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to significant variation in the methods applied for quantifying bacterial growth, the frequent lack of complexity in the biofilms, and the often-short duration of biofilm growth.
Authors: Saad Saeed AlShahrani; Mana'a Saleh AlAbbas; Isadora Martini Garcia; Maha Ibrahim AlGhannam; Muath Abdulrahman AlRuwaili; Fabrício Mezzomo Collares; Maria Salem Ibrahim Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 3.623
Authors: Zhijing Yang; Weiwei Liu; Huimin Liu; Rong Li; Lu Chang; Shaoning Kan; Ming Hao; Dongxu Wang Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2022-07-22
Authors: Laisa Cruzetta; Isadora M Garcia; Gabriela de Souza Balbinot; Amanda S Motta; Fabrício M Collares; Salvatore Sauro; Vicente C B Leitune Journal: Polymers (Basel) Date: 2020-06-11 Impact factor: 4.329
Authors: Sara Douf Alzanbaqi; Rakan Mishaal Alogaiel; Mohammed Ali Alasmari; Ahmed Mohammed Al Essa; Layla Nizar Khogeer; Basim Salem Alanazi; Eyad Sami Hawsah; Ahmed Mohammed Shaikh; Maria Salem Ibrahim Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 3.390