Biofilm formation on the surface of dental restorative materials by oral bacteria is considered an important step in the development of secondary caries. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in situ effect of a chlorhexidine (CHX)-containing mouthrinse on the biofilm formation occurring on the surface of human enamel and of two resin-based commercially available materials: a silorane-based material (Filtek Silorane®) and a methacrylate-based material (Filtek Supreme XT®).
Methods
53 disks were obtained for each of the two composites and 37 disks for enamel. The surface was characterized by determining the surface roughness and the surface free energy of 5 samples for each of the three materials tested, then the remaining samples were mounted on splints worn by 16 volunteers. The participants were randomly divided into two groups: an experimental group that used 0.12% CHX-based mouthrinse and a control group that used a placebo mouthrinse. Biofilm formation on the different surfaces after a 24 h period was assessed using MTT assay.
Results
The two composites in the group treated with the placebo mouthrinse showed a similar biofilm formation, which was significantly higher than that occurring on enamel surfaces. The CHX-based mouthrinse significantly reduced biofilm formation on the surfaces of the two resin-based materials when compared with the placebo mouthrinse. The reduction was particularly relevant on the Filtek Silorane surfaces.
Conclusions
The new silorane-based material seems to interact with CHX in a promising way from the point of view of biofilm formation control.
FerracaneJ.L.Resin composite – state of the art. Dent Mater.2011; 27(1): 29–38.
2.
LynchC.D., FrazierK.B., McConnellR.J., BlumI.R., WilsonN.H.State-of-the-art techniques in operative dentistry: contemporary teaching of posterior composites in UK and Irish dental schools. Br Dent J.2010; 209(3): 129–136.
3.
LeeJ.H., UmC.M., LeeI.B.Rheological properties of resin composites according to variations in monomer and filler composition. Dent Mater.2006; 22(6): 515–526.
MjörI.A., ToffenettiF.Secondary caries: a literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int.2000; 31(3): 165–179.
6.
BernardoM., LuisH., MartinM.D.. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc.2007; 138(6): 775–783.
7.
BrambillaE., CagettiM.G., GaglianiM., FadiniL., García-GodoyF., StrohmengerL.Influence of different adhesive restorative materials on mutans streptococci colonization. Am J Dent.2005; 18(3): 173–176.
8.
SbordoneL., BortolaiaC.Oral microbial biofilms and plaque-related diseases: microbial communities and their role in the shift from oral health to disease. Clin Oral Investig.2003; 7(4): 181–188.
9.
MontanaroL., CampocciaD., RizziS.. Evaluation of bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans on dental restorative materials. Biomaterials.2004; 25(18): 4457–4463.
10.
RimondiniL., CerroniL., CarrassiA., TorricelliP.Bacterial colonization of zirconia ceramic surfaces: an in vitro and in vivo study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.2002; 17(6): 793–798.
SinghJ., KhalichiP., CvitkovitchD.G., SanterreJ.P.Composite resin degradation products from BisGMA monomer modulate the expression of genes associated with biofilm formation and other virulence factors in Streptococcus mutans. J Biomed Mater Res A.2009; 88(2): 551–560.
LoguercioA.D., ReisA., SchroederM., BalducciI., VersluisA., BallesterR.Y.Polymerization shrinkage: effects of boundary conditions and filling technique of resin composite restorations. J Dent.2004; 32(6): 459–470.
15.
RosinM., UrbanA.D., GärtnerC., BernhardtO., SpliethC., MeyerG.Polymerization shrinkage-strain and microleakage in dentin-bordered cavities of chemically and light-cured estorative materials. Dent Mater.2002; 18(7): 521–528.
16.
EickJ.D., RobinsonS.J., ByerleyT.J., ChappelowC.C.Adhesives and nonshrinking dental resins of the future. Quintessence Int.1993; 24(9): 632–640.
17.
DuarteS.Jr., BottaA.C., PharkJ.H., SadanA.Selected mechanical and physical properties and clinical application of a new low-shrinkage composite restoration. Quintessence Int.2009; 40(8): 631–638.
18.
WeinmannW., ThalackerC., GuggenbergerR.Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater.2005; 21(1): 68–74.
LienW., VandewalleK.S.Physical properties of a new silorane-based restorative system. Dent Mater.2010; 26(4): 337–344.
21.
BurkeF.J., CrispR.J., JamesA.. Two year clinical evaluation of a low-shrink resin composite material in UK general dental practices. Dent Mater.2011; 27(7): 622–630.
22.
PoggioC., ArciolaC.R., RostiF., ScribanteA., SainoE., VisaiL.Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to different restorative materials. Int J Artif Organs.2009; 32(9): 671–677.
23.
AuschillT.M., HeinN., HellwigE., FolloM., SculeanA., ArweilerN.B.Effect of two antimicrobial agents on early in situ biofilm formation. J Clin Periodontol.2005; 32(2): 147–152.
24.
Van StrydonckD.A., TimmermanM.F., van der VeldenU., van der WeijdenG.A.Plaque inhibition of two commercially available chlorhexidine mouthrinses. J Clin Periodontol.2005; 32(3): 305–309.
BollenC.M., LambrechtsP., QuirynenM.Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater.1997; 13(4): 258–269.
27.
StrömG., FredrikssonM., SteniusP.Contact angles, work of adhesion, and interfacial tensions at a dissolving hydrocarbon surface. J Colloid Interface Sci.1987; 119(2): 352–361.
BurkeF.J., CrispR.J., BellT.J.. One-year retrospective clinical evaluation of hybrid composite restorations placed in United Kingdom general practices. Quintessence Int.2001; 32(4): 293–298.
30.
ArciolaC.R., MontanaroL., CostertonJ.W.New trends in diagnosis and control strategies for implant infections. Int J Artif Organs.2011; 34(9): 727–736.
31.
AslamS., DarouicheR.O.Role of antibiofilm-antimicrobial agents in controlling device-related infections. Int J Artif Organs.2011; 34(9): 752–758.
32.
VisaiL., De NardoL., PuntaC.. Titanium oxide antibacterial surfaces in biomedical devices. Int J Artif Organs.2011; 34(9): 929–946.
33.
ArciolaC.R., CampocciaD., SpezialeP., MontanaroL., CostertonJ.W.Biofilm formation in Staphylococcus implant infections. A review of molecular mechanisms and implications for biofilm-resistant materials. Biomaterials.2012; 33(26): 5967–5982.
34.
SousaR.P., ZaninI.C., LimaJ.P.. In situ effects of restorative materials on dental biofilm and enamel demineralisation. J Dent.2009; 37(1): 44–51.
35.
HeintzeS.D., TwetmanS.Interdental mutans streptococci suppression in vivo: a comparison of different chlorhexidine regimens in relation to restorative material. Am J Dent.2002; 15(2): 103–108.
36.
KonishiN., ToriiY., KurosakiA., TakatsukaT., ItotaT., YoshiyamaM.Confocal laser scanning microscopic analysis of early plaque formed on resin composite and human enamel. J Oral Rehabil.2003; 30(8): 790–795.
37.
BusscherH.J., DoornbuschG.I., Van der MeiH.C.Adhesion of mutants streptococci to glass with and without a salivary coating as studied in a parallel-plate flow chamber. J Dent Res.1992; 71(3): 491–500.
38.
QuirynenM., BollenC.M.The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol.1995; 22(1): 1–14.
39.
BusscherH.J., RinastitiM., SiswomihardjoW., van der MeiH.C.Biofilm formation on dental restorative and implant materials. J Dent Res.2010; 89(7): 657–665.
40.
SissonsC.H., CutressT.W., HoffmanM.P., WakefieldJ.S.A multi-station dental plaque microcosm (artificial mouth) for the study of plaque growth, metabolism, pH, and mineralization. J Dent Res.1991; 70(11): 1409–1416.
41.
HannigC., HannigM.The oral cavity–a key system to understand substratum-dependent bioadhesion on solid surfaces in man. Clin Oral Investig.2009; 13(2): 123–139.
42.
KawaiK., TsuchitaniY.Effects of resin composite components on glucosyltransferase of cariogenic bacterium. J Biomed Mater Res.2000; 51(1): 123–127.
43.
KhalichiP., CvitkovitchD.G., SanterreJ.P.Effect of composite resin biodegradation products on oral streptococcal growth. Biomaterials.2004; 25(24): 5467–5472.
