Display options
Cite
Jalalian E, Mofrad G, Ahmadpour S. Adhesion of Streptococcus Mutans to Glass Ionomer, BisCem Cement and Enamel: An in Vitro Study. J Dent (Tehran). 2015;12(9):678-85
Jalalian, E., Mofrad, G., & Ahmadpour, S. (2015). Adhesion of Streptococcus Mutans to Glass Ionomer, BisCem Cement and Enamel: An in Vitro Study. Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran), 12(9), 678-85.
Jalalian, Ezzatollah, et al. "Adhesion of Streptococcus Mutans to Glass Ionomer, BisCem Cement and Enamel: An in Vitro Study." Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran) vol. 12,9 (2015): 678-85.
Jalalian E, Mofrad G, Ahmadpour S. Adhesion of Streptococcus Mutans to Glass Ionomer, BisCem Cement and Enamel: An in Vitro Study. J Dent (Tehran). 2015 Sep;12(9):678-85. PMID: 27148379; PMCID: PMC4854747.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Dent (Tehran). 2015 Sep;12(9):678-85.

Adhesion of Streptococcus Mutans to Glass Ionomer, BisCem Cement and Enamel: An in Vitro Study.

Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran)

Ezzatollah Jalalian, Ghazal Mofrad, Sogol Ahmadpour

Affiliations

  1. Associate Professor, Department of Fix Prosthodontics, Member of Implant Research Center, Dental Branch, Azad University of Tehran, Iran.
  2. Dentist, MPH, University of Nevada, LV, School of Community Health Sciences, Nevada, USA.
  3. Dentist, Resident of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Dental Branch, Tehran, Iran.

PMID: 27148379 PMCID: PMC4854747

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Considering the adhesion of some microorganisms such as Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) to restorative materials and the unrecognized consequences of this phenomenon, and due to the controversies in this regard, it is important to discover the materials to which the lowest adhesion of S. mutans occurs. The objective of this study was to assess the level of adhesion of S. mutans to glass ionomer (GI), BisCem Cement and enamel.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro experimental study, 12 specimens including five GI blocks (GC America Inc., Alsip, IL, USA), five BisCem blocks (Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA) and two enamel blocks were exposed to a bacterial suspension (1×10(6) mg/mL). After incubation for one hour at 37°C, the swab samples were taken and cultured in blood agar. The S. mutans colonies were counted by unaided vision after 48 hours of incubation. The results were analyzed using ANOVA followed by the Tukey's test.

RESULTS: The number of colonies attributed to enamel, GI, and BisCem blocks was 24±2, 24.2±2.7 and 14.8±1.7 colonies/mm(2), respectively. There was no difference between enamel and GI in terms of adhesion of S. mutans (P=0.08 and P>0.001, respectively); however, the difference between these two and BisCem was statistically significant (P= 0.00075 and P<0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, BisCem cement is superior to GI for the cementation of indirect restorations.

Keywords: Bacterial Adhesion; BisCem Cement; Glass Ionomer Cements; Streptococcus Mutans

References

  1. J Dent. 2011 Jul;39 Suppl 1:e30-6 - PubMed
  2. Pediatr Dent. 2005 May-Jun;27(3):186-90 - PubMed
  3. J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Jun;83(6):664-7 - PubMed
  4. J Oral Rehabil. 2002 Mar;29(3):257-62 - PubMed
  5. Swed Dent J. 1998;22(4):133-41 - PubMed
  6. J Oral Rehabil. 2011 Apr;38(4):295-314 - PubMed
  7. J Oral Rehabil. 2004 Mar;31(3):278-85 - PubMed
  8. J Oral Rehabil. 1998 Jan;25(1):52-8 - PubMed
  9. Quintessence Int. 1996 Oct;27(10):659-67 - PubMed
  10. Am J Dent. 2005 Jun;18(3):173-6 - PubMed
  11. J Prosthet Dent. 2010 Apr;103(4):221-7 - PubMed
  12. J Prosthet Dent. 1993 Jun;69(6):568-72 - PubMed
  13. Caries Res. 1997;31(4):268-74 - PubMed
  14. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2012 Jul-Sep;30(3):206-11 - PubMed
  15. Dent Mater. 1997 Jul;13(4):258-69 - PubMed
  16. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997 Sep;112(3):271-4 - PubMed
  17. Open Dent J. 2009 Dec 04;3:227-32 - PubMed
  18. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Sep;80(3):280-301 - PubMed
  19. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Nov;136(5):668-74 - PubMed
  20. Biomaterials. 2004 Aug;25(18):4457-63 - PubMed
  21. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2010 Jan-Feb;31(1):30-2, 34, 36-8 passim; quiz 42, 44 - PubMed
  22. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010 Apr;93(1):122-7 - PubMed
  23. Eur J Dent. 2013 Apr;7(2):191-5 - PubMed
  24. Braz Oral Res. 2013 Jan-Feb;27(1):73-5 - PubMed
  25. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008 Oct;19(10):3249-53 - PubMed
  26. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014 Mar 23;2014:807086 - PubMed
  27. Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Dec;16(6):1571-8 - PubMed
  28. Scand J Dent Res. 1991 Feb;99(1):13-9 - PubMed
  29. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Dec;94(6):511-9 - PubMed
  30. Dent Mater. 2002 Mar;18(2):136-42 - PubMed
  31. Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Feb;16(1):191-200 - PubMed
  32. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Apr;137(4):489-95; discussion 13A - PubMed
  33. J Dent Res. 2001 Nov;80(11):2005-10 - PubMed
  34. Oper Dent. 1999 Jan-Feb;24(1):38-44 - PubMed

Publication Types