Display options
Share it on

J Clin Exp Dent. 2017 Mar 01;9(3):e387-e393. doi: 10.4317/jced.53464. eCollection 2017 Mar.

Biological and antibacterial properties of a new silver fiber post: In vitro evaluation.

Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry

Claudio Poggio, Federico Trovati, Matteo Ceci, Marco Chiesa, Marco Colombo, Giampiero Pietrocola

Affiliations

  1. MD, DDS, Department of Clinical-Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, Section of Dentistry, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
  2. DMD, Department of Clinical-Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, Section of Dentistry, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
  3. DMD, PhD , Department of Clinical-Surgical, Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences, Section of Dentistry, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
  4. MD, DDS, Department of Molecular Medicine, Unit of Biochemistry, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy.

PMID: 28298980 PMCID: PMC5347287 DOI: 10.4317/jced.53464

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The incorporation of nano silver particles (AgNPs) to improve antibacterial properties of dental materials has become increasingly common. The aim of the present study was to compare the antibacterial activity and cytotoxicity effects of different fiber posts: glass fiber post, quartz fiber post, nano fiber post and silver fiber post.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: The antibacterial activity against

RESULTS: Silver fiber post was the only material showing a fair antibacterial effect against all the three streptococcal strains. The level of cytotoxicity of all the fiber posts tested was higher than 90% and therefore they were considered not cytotoxic.

CONCLUSIONS: The new silver fiber post reported a fair antibacterial activity. On the other hand all the fiber posts tested (including the post with incorporated AgNPs) proved to be biocompatible, suggesting that their application does not represent a threat to human health.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest statement:The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exist.

References

  1. Small. 2008 Jun;4(6):746-50 - PubMed
  2. Nanomedicine. 2007 Mar;3(1):95-101 - PubMed
  3. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2014 Jun 18;5(2):69-76 - PubMed
  4. Int J Artif Organs. 2011 Sep;34(9):908-13 - PubMed
  5. Dent Mater. 2012 Aug;28(8):842-52 - PubMed
  6. Int J Nanomedicine. 2012;7:4777-86 - PubMed
  7. Braz Dent J. 2016 Jan-Feb;27(1):46-51 - PubMed
  8. Dent Mater. 2014 Oct;30(10):1179-86 - PubMed
  9. Biomaterials. 2004 Nov;25(24):5547-56 - PubMed
  10. J Clin Exp Dent. 2016 Feb 01;8(1):e22-6 - PubMed
  11. J Endod. 2010 Oct;36(10):1698-702 - PubMed
  12. J Endod. 2008 Nov;34(11):1291-1301.e3 - PubMed
  13. J Endod. 1994 Apr;20(4):169-72 - PubMed
  14. Dent Mater. 2016 Jul;32(7):929-39 - PubMed
  15. Int J Biomater. 2015;2015:485275 - PubMed
  16. Nanotechnology. 2005 Oct;16(10):2346-53 - PubMed
  17. J Endod. 2008 Jun;34(6):735-8 - PubMed
  18. Acta Biomater. 2009 Jul;5(6):2279-89 - PubMed
  19. J Adv Prosthodont. 2011 Mar;3(1):20-4 - PubMed
  20. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2012 Jun;20(2):71-6 - PubMed
  21. J Periodontal Res. 2001 Apr;36(2):108-13 - PubMed
  22. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2013 Aug;101(6):929-38 - PubMed
  23. Restor Dent Endod. 2014 May;39(2):109-14 - PubMed
  24. Gerodontology. 2006 Mar;23(1):17-22 - PubMed
  25. J Dent. 2006 Jan;34(1):35-40 - PubMed
  26. J Endod. 2013 Nov;39(11):1435-7 - PubMed
  27. Nanomedicine. 2010 Oct;6(5):681-8 - PubMed
  28. J Prosthodont Res. 2017 Jan;61(1):73-80 - PubMed
  29. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2014 Jul;11(4):469-74 - PubMed
  30. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006 Jul;102(1):119-26 - PubMed
  31. Dent Mater. 2013 Feb;29(2):199-210 - PubMed
  32. J Adhes Dent. 2015 Apr;17 (2):175-80 - PubMed
  33. Braz Dent J. 2009;20(2):107-11 - PubMed
  34. J Hosp Infect. 2005 May;60(1):1-7 - PubMed
  35. Eur J Oral Sci. 2015 Apr;123(2):116-21 - PubMed
  36. Braz Oral Res. 2016;30:null - PubMed
  37. Biomaterials. 2011 Aug;32(24):5706-16 - PubMed
  38. J Endod. 2014 Jan;40(1):119-23 - PubMed

Publication Types