The Influence of Modified Experimental Dental Resin Composites on the Initial In Situ Biofilm-A Triple-Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Split-Mouth Trial.

Niklas Burgard,Stefan Rüttermann,Melanie Kienitz,Claudia Jourdan

doi:10.3390/polym13162814

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate the bacterial viability of the initial biofilm on the surface of experimental modified dental resin composites. Twenty-five healthy individuals with good oral hygiene were included in this study. In a split-mouth design, they received acrylic splints with five experimental composite resin specimens. Four of them were modified with either a novel polymeric hollow-bead delivery system or methacrylated polymerizable Irgasan (Antibacterial B), while one specimen served as an unmodified control (ST). A delivery system based on Poly-Pore® was loaded with one of the active agents: Tego® Protect 5000 (Antiadhesive A), Dimethicone (Antiadhesive B), or Irgasan (Antibacterial A). All study subjects refrained from toothbrushing during the study period. Specimens were detached from the splints after 8 h and given a live/dead staining before fluorescence microscopy. A Friedman test and a post hoc Nemenyi test were applied with a significance level at p < 0.05. In summary, all materials but Antibacterial B showed a significant antibacterial effect compared to ST. The results suggested the role of the materials’ chemistry in the dominance of cell adhesion. In conclusion, dental resin composites with Poly-Pore-loaded active agents showed antibacterial effectiveness in situ.

Highlights

A vast majority of dental fillings fail due to recurring carious lesions on the existing filling margins [1]
The specifications of the composite materials and their manufacturing processes have been previously published, with the standard composite corresponding to material ST [17,22,24], and Antiadhesive A and Antiadhesive B corresponding to Material A and Material C, respectively [22,24]; and Antibacterial A and Antibacterial B corresponding to Material A and Material C, respectively [17]
A total of 25 participants were selected from the catchment area of a German dental clinic for this split-mouth study

Summary

Introduction

A vast majority of dental fillings fail due to recurring carious lesions on the existing filling margins [1]. It is comprehensible that the surface structure, in aspects of surface roughness or surface free energy of a dental filling, influences the bacterial adhesion, and the development, of secondary caries [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. It has been reported that the specific material itself can influence the caries formation. An amalgam is considered to be an effective filling material to modify the biofilm formation due to its bacteriostatic features [10]. Composite resin fillings show an increased plaque accumulation over the course of wearing [11], and fail more often than amalgams due to the development of secondary caries at the filling margins [12,13,14]

Objectives

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion