Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 965–974 | Cite as

Synthesis and application of triclosan methacrylate monomer in resin composites

  • Andreia Bolzan de PaulaEmail author
  • Jesus Roberto Taparelli
  • Roberta Caroline Bruschi Alonso
  • Lúcia Helena Innocentini-Mei
  • Regina M. Puppin-Rontani
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the antibacterial activity, bacterial viability, cytotoxicity, and mechanical/physical properties of a novel methacrylate triclosan-derivative monomer (TM) incorporated in dental resin composite.

Methods

TM was synthesized by esterification and, after characterization by FT-IR, was added to an experimental composite. Samples were divided into two groups according to TM presence, i.e., C1 (control) and C2 (C1 + 14.4% TM). Microbiological properties: Specimens (C1 and C2) were prepared and placed on bacterial suspensions of Streptococcus mutans. Antibacterial activity, MTT, and live/dead bacterial viability were used to test the resin composites. All assays were performed in triplicates. Mechanical properties: Specimens underwent compression (CS) and flexural strength (FS) tests conducted in an Instron universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Physical properties: Specimens were assessed for Knoop hardness (KHN) and crosslink density (CD). Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy allowed the degree of conversion (DC) to be evaluated. Data were subjected to appropriate statistical tests according to data distribution and assay (p < 0.05).

Results

Microbiological properties: C2 showed the lowest biofilm accumulation and the highest membrane-compromised bacteria in the biofilm. Mechanical/physical properties: For CS, FS, KHN, and DC, there was no significant difference between groups C1 and C2; however, significant difference was observed for the CD assay.

Conclusions

The triclosan methacrylate reduces bacterial adhesion of S. mutans and decreased the formation of bacterial biofilm without affecting important polymer properties. The triclosan methacrylate incorporated in resin composite could greatly reduce the live bacterial adhesion of S. mutans and decrease the formation of bacterial biofilm without affecting important polymer properties.

Clinical significance

The resin composites containing triclosan methacrylate could greatly reduce the bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. That might prevent the secondary caries round the margins of the restorations.

Keywords

Dental monomer Composite Antibacterial activity Degree of conversion Hardness Three-point flexure testing 

Notes

Funding

Andréia Bolzan de Paula received FAPESP scholarship (grant no. 2011/14151-5) and additional grant from FAPESP (grant no. 2012/10750-4) to conduct this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Hamada S, Slade HD (1980) Biology, immunology, and cariogenicity of Streptococcus mutans. Microbiol Rev 44:331–384Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Padovani GC, Fúcio SBP, Ambrosano GM, Sinhoreti MAC, Puppin-Rontani RM (2014) In situ surface biodegradation of restorative materials. Oper Dent 39:349–360.  https://doi.org/10.2341/13-089-C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Paula AB, Fucio SBP, Alonso RCB, Ambrosano GMB, Puppin-Rontani RM (2011) Biodegradation and abrasive wear of nano restorative materials. Oper Dent 36:670–677.  https://doi.org/10.2341/10-221-L CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mjor IA, Moorhead JE (2000) Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J 50:361–366.  https://doi.org/10.2341/10-221-L CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Auschill TM, Arweiler NB, Brecx M, Reich E, Sculean A, Netuschil L (2002) The effect of dental restorative materials on dental biofilm. Eur J Oral 110:48–53.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0909-8836.2001.101160.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beyth N, Domb AJ, Weiss EI (2007) An in vitro quantitative antibacterial analysis of amalgam and composite resin. J Dent 35:201–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2006.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Weng Y, Howard L, Chong VJ, Gregory RL, Xie D (2012) A novel antibacterial resin composite for improved dental restoratives. J Mater Sci Mater Med 23:1553–1561.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-012-4629-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Singh C, Dua V, Vyas M, Verma S (2013) Evaluation of the antimicrobial and physical properties of an orthodontic photo-activated adhesive modified with an antiplaque agent: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 24:694–700.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.127613 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    das Neves PB, Agnelli JA, Kurachi C, de Souza CW (2014) Addition of silver nanoparticles to composite resin: effect on physical and bactericidal properties in vitro. Braz Dent J 25:141–145.  https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201302398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Matalon S, Slutzky H, Weiss EI (2014) Surface antibacterial properties of packable resin composites: part I. Quintessence Int 35:189–193Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rathke A, Staude R, Muche R, Haller B (2010) Antibacterial activity of a triclosan-containing resin composite matrix against three common oral bacteria. J Mater Sci Mater Med 21:2971–2297.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-010-4126-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Imazato S, McCabe JF (1994) Influence of incorporation of antibacterial monomer on curing behavior of a dental composite. J Dent Res 73:1641–1645.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345940730100901 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sharma NC, Galustinas HJ, Qaqish J, Galustians A, Rustogi K, Petrone ME, Chaknis P, Garcia L, Volpe AR, Proskin HM (2007) Clinical effectiveness of a dentifrice containing triclosan and copolymer for controlling breath odor. Am J Dent 20:79–82Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lyman FL, Furia T (1969) Toxicology of 2,4,4-trichloro-2-hydroxydiphenyl ether. Ind Med 38:64–71Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Salva SJ, Kong BM, Lin YJ (1989) Triclosan: a safety profile. Am J Dent 2:185–196Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tulp MT, Sundstrom G, Martron LB, Hutzinger O (1979) Metabolism of chlorodiphenyl ethers and Irgasan DP 300. Xenobiotica 9:65–77.  https://doi.org/10.3109/00498257909038708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heath RJ, Rock CO (1995) Enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase (fabI) plays a determinant role in completing cycles of fatty acid elongation in Escherichia coli. J Biol Chem 270:26538–26542.  https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.270.44.26538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McMurry LM, Oethinger M, Levy SB (1998) Triclosan targets lipid synthesis. Nature 394:531–532.  https://doi.org/10.1038/28970 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nudera WJ, Fayad MI, Johnson BR, Zhu M, Wenckus CS, Begole EA, Wu CD (2007) Antimicrobial effect of triclosan and triclosan with Gantrez on five common endodontic pathogens. J Endod 33:1239–1242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2007.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Imazato S (2003) Antibacterial properties of resin composites and dentin bonding systems. Dent Mater 19:449–457.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00102-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Imazato S, Torri M, Tsuchitani Y (1995) Antibacterial effect of composite incorporating triclosan against Streptococcus mutans. J Osaka Uni Dent Sch 35:5–11Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Atai M, Watts DC, Atai Z (2005) Shrinkage strain-rates of dental resin-monomer and composite systems. Biomaterials 26:5015–5020.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.01.022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park YJ, Chae KH, Rawls HR (1999) Development of a new photoinitiation system for dental light-cure composite resins. Dent Mater 15:120–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00021-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rolland SL, McCabe JF, Robinson C, Walls AW (2006) In vitro biofilm formation on the surface of resin-based dentine adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci 114:243–249.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2006.00359.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boulos L, Prévost M, Barbeau B, Coallier J, Desjardins R (1999) LIVE/DEAD BacLight: application of a new rapid staining method for direct enumeration of viable and total bacteria in drinking water. J Microbiol Methods 37:77–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7012(99)00048-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rueggeber FA, Hashinger DT, Fairhurst CW (1990) Calibration of FTIR conversion analysis of contemporary dental resin composites. Dent Mater 6:241–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(05)80005-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Asmussen E, Peutzfeld A (2001) Influence of pulse-delay curing on softening of polymer structures. J Dent Res 80:1570–1573.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345010800061801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E (2005) Resin composite properties and energy density of light cure. J Dent Res 84:659–662.  https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910508400715 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fucio SBP, De Paula AB, Puppin-Rontani RM, Carvalho FG, Ambrosano GMB, Feitosa VP (2012) Biomechanical degradation of the nano-filled resin modified glass-ionomer surface. Amer J Dent 25:315–320Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kinnimen SL, Wimpenny JWT, Adams D, Marsh PD (1996) Development of a steady-state oral microbial biofilm community using the constant-depth film fermenter. Microbiology 142:631–638.  https://doi.org/10.1099/13500872-142-3-631 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brecx M, Theilade J, Attstrom R (1983) An ultrastructural quantitative study of the significance of microbial multiplication during early dental plaque growth. J Periodont Res 18:17–86.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0765.1983.tb00351.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Weiger R, Decker EM, Krastl G, Brecx M (1999) Deposition an retention of vital and dead Streptococcus sanguinis cells on glass surfaces in a flow-chamber system. Arch Oral Biol 44:621–628.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-9969(99)00061-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Joux F, Lebaron P, Troussellie M (1997) Succession of cellular states in a Salmonella typhimurium population during starvation in artificial seawater microcosms. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 22:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Namba N, Yoshida Y, Nagaoka N, Takashima S, Matsuura-Yoshimoto K, Maeda H, Van Meerbeek B, Suzuki K, Takashiba S (2009) Antibacterial effect of bactericide immobilized in resin matrix. Dent Mater 25:424–430.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gerdes K, Christensen SK, Løbner-Olesen A (2005) Prokaryotic toxin–antitoxin stress response loci. Nat Rev Microbiol 3:371–382.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro1147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Engelberg-Kulka H, Amitai S, Kolodkin-Gal I, Hazan R (2006) Bacterial programmed cell death and multicellular behavior in bacteria. PLoS Genet 2:135.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Imazato S, Tarumi H, Ebi N, Ebisu S (2000) Cytotoxic effects of composite restorations employing self-etching primers or experimental antibacterial primers. J Dent 28:61–67.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00039-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Camps J, Tardieu C, Dejou J, Franquin JC, Ladaique P, Rieu R (1997) In vitro cytotoxicity of dental adhesive systems under simulated pulpal pressure. Dent Mater 13:34–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80006-1
  39. 39.
    Dewald JP, Ferracane JL (1987) A comparison of fours modes of evaluating depth of cure of light-activated composites. J Dent Res 66:727–730.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345870660030401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    He J, Söderling E, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK (2012) Incorporation of an antibacterial and radiopaque monomer in to dental resin system. Dent Mater 28:110–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Łsokołowski J, Szynkowska MI, Kleczewska J, Kowalski Z, Sobczak-Kupiec A, Pawlaczyk A, Sokołowski K, Łukomska-Szymańska M (2014) Evaluation of resin composites modified with nanogold and nanosilver. Acta Bioeng Biomech 16:51–61.  https://doi.org/10.5277/abb140107 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ferracane JF (2006) Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks. Dent Mater 22:211–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.05.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreia Bolzan de Paula
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jesus Roberto Taparelli
    • 2
  • Roberta Caroline Bruschi Alonso
    • 3
    • 4
  • Lúcia Helena Innocentini-Mei
    • 2
  • Regina M. Puppin-Rontani
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental Materials Division, Piracicaba Dental SchoolUniversity of CampinasPiracicabaBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Materials and Bioprocess Engineering, School of Chemical EngineeringState University of Campinas, UNICAMPCampinasBrazil
  3. 3.Technological and Research Center (NPT)Mogi das Cruzes University (UMC)Mogi das CruzesBrazil
  4. 4.School of DentistryMetropolitan University of Santos (UNIMES)SantosBrazil

Personalised recommendations