Restor Dent Endod.  2016 Nov;41(4):278-282. 10.5395/rde.2016.41.4.278.

Comparative assessment of antibacterial activity of different glass ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteria

• Naik RG
• Dodamani A
• Khairnar M
• Jadhav HC
• Deshmukh M

• KMID: 2356004
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2016.41.4.278

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
Glass ionomer cements (GICs), which are biocompatible and adhesive to the tooth surface, are widely used nowadays for tooth restoration. They inhibit the demineralization and promote the remineralization of the tooth structure adjacent to the restoration, as well as interfere with bacterial growth. Hence, the present study was conducted to assess and compare the antimicrobial activity of three commercially available GICs against two cariogenic bacteria.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An agar plate diffusion test was used for evaluating the antimicrobial effect of three different GICs (Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, and d-tech) on Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Lactobacillus acidophilus (L. acidophilus). Thirty plates were prepared and divided into two groups. The first group was inoculated with S. mutans, and the second group was inoculated with L. acidophilus. These plates were then incubated at 37℃ for 24 hours. Zones of bacterial growth inhibition that formed around each well were recorded in millimeters (mm).
RESULTS
The zones of inhibition for Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, and d-tech on S. mutans were found to be 10.84 ± 0.22 mm, 10.23 ± 0.15 mm, and 15.65 ± 0.31 mm, respectively, whereas those for L. acidophilus were found to be 10.43 ± 0.12 mm, 10.16 ± 0.11 mm, and 15.57 ± 0.13 mm, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
D-tech cement performed better in terms of the zone of bacterial inhibition against the two test bacteria, than the other two tested glass ionomers.

Keyword

Antibacterial effect; Glass ionomer cements; Growth inhibition; Lactobacilli; Streptococci

MeSH Terms

Adhesives
Agar
Bacteria*
Diffusion
Glass Ionomer Cements*
Glass*
Lactobacillus acidophilus
Molar
Streptococcus mutans
Tooth
Adhesives
Agar
Glass Ionomer Cements

Reference

1. California Health Care Foundation. Emergency Department Visits for Preventable Dental Conditions in California. updated 2016 Aug 31. Available from: http://www.chcf.org/publications/2009/03/emergency-department-visitsfor-preventable-dental-conditions-in-california.

2. World Health Organization. WHO Oral health factsheet N°318. updated 2015 Jan 12. Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs318/en/.

3. Petersen PE, Bourgeois D, Ogawa H, Estupinan-Day S, Ndiaye C. The global burden of oral diseases and risks to oral health. Bull World Health Organ. 2005; 83:661–669.

4. Horowitz AM. Introduction to the symposium on minimal intervention techniques for caries. J Public Health Dent. 1996; 56:133–134.

5. Ismail AI, Hasson H, Sohn W. Dental caries in the second millennium. J Dent Educ. 2001; 65:953–959.

6. Llena Puy C, Forner Navarro L. Evidence concerning the medical management of caries. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2008; 13:E325–E330.

7. Lai GY, Li MY. Secondary caries. In : Li MY, editor. Contemporary approach to dental caries. Shanghai: InTech;2012. updated 2016 Aug 31. 403–422. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/contemporary-approach-to-dental caries/secondary-caries.

8. Weerheijm KL, Groen HJ. The residual caries dilemma. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999; 27:436–441.

9. Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials? - properties, limitations and future trends. Mater. 2010; 3:76–96.

10. Upadhya NP, Kishore G. Glass ionomer cement - the different generations. Trends Biomater Artif Organs. 2005; 18:158–165.

11. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G^*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39:175–191.

12. da Silva RC, Zuanon AC, Spolidorio DM, Campos JA. Antibacterial activity of four glass ionomer cements used in atraumatic restorative treatment. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007; 18:1859–1862.

13. Queiroz AM, Nelson-Filho P, Silva LA, Assed S, Silva RA, Ito IY. Antibacterial activity of root canal filling materials for primary teeth: zinc oxide and eugenol cement, Calen paste thickened with zinc oxide, Sealapex and EndoREZ. Braz Dent J. 2009; 20:290–296.

14. Luczaj-Cepowicz E, Marczuk-Kolada G, Zalewska A, Pawińska M, Leszczyńska K. Antibacterial activity of selected glass ionomer cements. Postepy Hig Med Dosw (Online). 2014; 68:23–28.

15. Goldman E, Green LH, editors. Practical handbook of microbiology. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press;2009. p. 150–151.

16. Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject? Aust Dent J. 2011; 56:Suppl 1. 23–30.

17. Cooper KE, Linton AH, Sehgal SN. The effect of inoculurn size on inhibition zones in agar media using staphylococci and streptomycin. J Gen Microbiol. 1958; 18:670–687.