Surface Roughness and Microbial Adhesion After Finishing of Alkasite Restorative Material
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This study is aimed to evaluate and compare the surface roughness and microbial adhesion to alkasite restorative material (Cention N), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and composite resin. And to examine the correlation between bacterial adhesion and surface roughness by different finishing systems. Specimens were fabricated in disk shapes and divided into four groups by finishing methods (control, carbide bur, fine grit diamond bur, and white stone bur). Surface roughness was tested by atomic force microscope and surface observation was performed by scanning electron microscope. Colony forming units were measured after incubating Streptococcus mutans biofilm on specimens using CDC biofilm reactor. Cention N surface roughness was less than 0.2 μm after finishing procedure. Control specimens of resin and Cention N specimens were significantly (p = 0.01) rougher. Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC = 0.13) indicated a weak correlation between surface roughness and S. mutans adhesion to the specimens. Compared with resin specimens, RMGI and Cention N showed lower microbial adhesion. Surface roughness and bacterial adhesion were not significantly different, regardless of the finishing systems.
Abstract
This study is aimed to evaluate and compare the surface roughness and microbial adhesion to alkasite restorative material (Cention N), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and composite resin. And to examine the correlation between bacterial adhesion and surface roughness by different finishing systems. Specimens were fabricated in disk shapes and divided into four groups by finishing methods (control, carbide bur, fine grit diamond bur, and white stone bur). Surface roughness was tested by atomic force microscope and surface observation was performed by scanning electron microscope. Colony forming units were measured after incubating Streptococcus mutans biofilm on specimens using CDC biofilm reactor. Cention N surface roughness was less than 0.2 μm after finishing procedure. Control specimens of resin and Cention N specimens were significantly (p = 0.01) rougher. Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC = 0.13) indicated a weak correlation between surface roughness and S. mutans adhesion to the specimens. Compared with resin specimens, RMGI and Cention N showed lower microbial adhesion. Surface roughness and bacterial adhesion were not significantly different, regardless of the finishing systems.
참고문헌 (20)
- Bharti R, "Dental amalgam : An update", J Conserv Dent, 13, pp.204~208 (2010)
- A. C. O. S. AFFAIRS, "Dental amalgam : Update on safety concerns", J Am Dent Assoc, 129, pp.494~503 (1998)
- Kaur M, "A comparative evaluation of compressive strength of Cention N with glass ionomer cement : An in-vitro study", Int J Appl Dent Sci, 5, pp.5~9 (2019)
- Patki B, "Direct permanent restoratives-amalgam vs composite", J Evol Med Dent Sci, 46, pp.8912~8918 (2013)
- Samanta S, "Comparison of microleakage in class V cavity restored with flowable composite resin, glass ionomer cement and cention N", Imp J Interdiscip Res, 3, pp.180~183 (2017)
- Jagvinder M, "Cention N : A review", Int Cur Res, 10, pp.69111~69112 (2018)
- "Cention N. Scientific documentation 2016"[URL]
- Debolina C, "Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of dental amalgam, Z350 composite resin and cention-N restoration in class II cavity", J Dent Med Sci, 17, pp.52~56 (2018)
- Kumari CM, "Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy", J Conserv Dent, 19, pp.56~62 (2018)
- Setty A, "Comparative evaluation of surface roughness of novel resin composite Cention N with Filtek Z350 XT : In vitro study", Int J Oral Care and Res, 7, pp.15~17 (2019)
- Bollen CM, "Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention : a review of the literature", Dent Mater, 13, pp.258~269 (1997)
- Rai R, "In vitro evaluation of the effect of two finishing and polishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials", J Conserv Dent, 16, pp.564~567 (2013)
- Wilder AD Jr, "Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials", J Dent, 28, pp.367~373 (2000)
- An JS, "Compositional differences in multi-species biofilms formed on various orthodontic adhesives", Eur J Orthod, 39, pp.528~533 (2017)
- Svanberg M, "Mutans Streptococci in plaque from margins of amalgam, composite, and glassionomer restorations", J Dent Res, 69, pp.861~864 (1990)
- de Fúcio SB, "Analyses of biofilms accumulated on dental restorative materials", Am J Dent, 22, pp.131~136 (2009)
- Gama-Teixeira A, "Streptococcus mutans-induced secondary caries adjacent to glass ionomer cement, composite resin and amalgam restorations in vitro", Braz Oral Res, 21, pp.368~374 (2007)
- Eick S, "Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to various restorative materials in a continuous flow system", J Oral Rehabil, 31, pp.278~285 (2004)
- Gupta N, "Comparison of fluoride ion release and alkalizing potential of a new bulk-fill alkasite", J Conserv Dent, 22, pp.296~299 (2019)
- Bayrak GD, "Effect of two different polishing systems on fluoride release, surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of newly developed restorative materials", J Esthet Restor Dent, 29, pp.424~434 (2017)