Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 1367–1372 | Cite as

Antimicrobial effect of bioceramic cements on multispecies microcosm biofilm: a confocal laser microscopy study

  • Alexander Pompermayer Jardine
  • Francisco Montagner
  • Ramiro Martins Quintana
  • Ivana Maria Zaccara
  • Patrícia Maria Poli KopperEmail author
Original Article



To assess the viability of multispecies microcosm biofilm after contact with NeoMTA Plus, Biodentine, and MTA Angelus.

Materials and methods

Fifty-four human dentin blocks (4 × 5 × 4 mm) were allocated to Hawley retainers, worn by six volunteers for 72 h. The blocks were then individually incubated in BHI broth for 21 days at 37 °C. At the end of experimental time for biofilm growth, the samples were randomly divided into four groups (n = 12): NeoMTA Plus, Biodentine, MTA Angelus, and negative control. The materials were placed in contact with the blocks. All samples were placed in cell-culture plate wells and incubated in BHI broth for 7 days at 37 °C. One sample from each volunteer (n = 6) was analyzed by SEM to describe the biofilm morphology. CLSM was performed to determine the percentage of viable biofilm biovolume. The data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparison test (α = 5%).


SEM showed biofilm formed by spherical and rod-shaped bacteria surrounded by an extracellular matrix. No material was able to kill all biofilm cells, and all groups had more than 50% of viable bacteria. NeoMTA Plus was significantly different from the negative control group (P < .05).


All tested materials were not effective against multispecies microcosm biofilm.

Clinical relevance

NeoMTA Plus, Biodentine, and MTA Angelus were not effective against multispecies microcosm biofilm. It is essential to understand that these bioceramic cements are indicated for infected clinical situations. Thus, complementary disinfection procedures should be conducted prior to filling with these materials.


Antimicrobial agents Biofilm Confocal microscopy Mineral trioxide aggregate Tricalcium silicate 



The authors would like to thank the Microscopy and Microanalyses Center (CMM) and the Laboratory of Oral Biochemistry and Microbiology (LABIM) of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS).


This study was conducted at the School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (Oral Biochemistry and Microbiology laboratory). The authors (Alexander Pompermayer Jardine, Ramiro Martins Quintana, and Ivana Maria Zaccara) received funding from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Ensino Superior (CAPES) Agency, Brazil.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The present study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil (CAAE 51315215.7.0000.5342).

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. 1.
    Sinai IH (1977) Endodontic perforations: their prognosis and treatment. J Am Dent Assoc 95:90–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siqueira-Júnior JF, Rôças IN, Lopes HP (2002) Patterns of microbial colonization in primary root canal infections. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 93:174–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faria-Júnior NB, Tanomaru-Filho M, Berbert FL, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM (2013) Antibiofilm activity, pH and solubility of endodontic sealers. Int Endod J 46:755–762. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morse DR (1981) Endodontic microbiology in the 1970s. Int Endod J 14:69–79. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nair PNR (1987) Light and electron microscopic studies of root canal flora and periapical lesions. J Endod 13:29–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seltzer S, Faber PA (1994) Microbiologic factors in endodontology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 78:634–645. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Siqueira-Júnior JF, Rôças IN, Souto R, Uzeda M, Colombo AP (2000) Checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization analysis of endodontic infections. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 89:744–748. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Siqueira-Júnior JF (2001) Strategies to treat infected root canals. J Calif Dent Assoc 29:825–837Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Siqueira-Júnior JF (2002) Endodontis infections: concepts, paradigms, and perspectives. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 94:281–293. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ricucci D, Siqueira-Júnior JF (2010) Biofilms and apical periodontitis: study of prevalence and association with clinical and histopathologic findings. J Endod 36:1277–1288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Torabinejad M, Hong CU, Mcdonald F, Pittford TR (1995) Physical and chemical properties of a new root-end filling material. J Endod 21:349–353. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scarparo RK, Haddad D, Acasigua GA, Fossati AC, Fachin EV, Grecca FS (2010) Mineral trioxide aggregate-based sealer: analysis of tissue reactions to a new endodontic material. J Endod 36:1174–1178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Camilleri J (2015) Staining potential of Neo MTA Plus, MTA Plus and Biodentine used for pulpotomy procedures. J Endod 41:1139–1145. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Camilleri J, Kraij P, Veber M, Sinagra E (2012) Characterization and analyses of acid-extractable and leached trace elements in dental cements. Int Endod J 45:737–743. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rajasekharan S, Martens LC, Cauwels RG, Verbeeck RM (2014) Biodentine material characteristics and clinical applications: a review of the literature. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 15:147–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ordinola-Zapata R, Bramante CM, Minotti PG, Cavenago BC, Garcia RB, Bernardineli N, Jaramillo DE, Duarte MAH (2013) Antimicrobial activity of triantibiotic paste, 2% chlorhexidine gel, and calcium hydroxide on an intraoral-infected dentin biofilm model. J Endod 36:115–118. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ordinola-Zapata R, Bramante CM, Cavenago B, Graeff MSZ, Gomes De Moraes I, Marciano M, Duarte MAH (2012) Antimicrobial effect of endodontic solutions used as final irrigants on a dentine biofilm model. Int Endod J 45:162–168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Böttcher DE, Sehnen NT, Montagner F, Parolo CCF, Grecca FS (2015) Evaluation of the effect of Enterococcus faecalis biofilm on the 2% chlorhexidine substantivity: an in vitro study. J Endod 21:1364–1370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shen Y, Qian W, Chung C, Olsen I, Haapasalo M (2009) Evaluation of the effect of two chlorhexidine preparations on biofilm bacteria in vitro: a three-dimensional quantitative analysis. J Endod 35:981–985. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chávez de Paz LE (2009) Image analysis software based on color segmentation for characterization of viability and physiological activity of biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol 75:1734–1739. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siboni F, Taddei P, Prati C, Gandolfi MG (2017) Properties of NeoMTA Plus and MTA Plus cements for endodontics. Int Endod J 50:83–94. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gandolfi MG, Siboni F, Primus CM Pratti C (2014) Ion release, porosity, solubility, and bioactivity of MTA Plus tricalcium silicate. J Endod 40:1632–1637. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Poggio C, Arciola CR, Beltrami R, Monaco A, Dagna A, Lombardini M, Visai L (2014) Cytocompatibility and antibacterial properties of capping materials. ScientificWorldJournal 2014:1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bhavana V, Chaitanya KP, Gandi P, Patil J, Dola B, Reddy RB (2015) Evaluation of antibacterial and antifungal activity of new calcium-based cement (Biodentine) compared to MTA and glass ionomer cement. J Conserv Dent 18:44–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ceci M, Beltrami R, Chiesa M, Colombo M, Poggio C (2015) Biological and chemical-physical properties of root-end filling materials: a comparative study. J Conserv Dent 18:94–99. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hiremath GS, Kulkarni RD, Naik BD (2015) Evaluation of minimal inhibitory concentration of two new materials using tube dilution method: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 18:159–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stojicic S, Shen Y, Qian W, Johnson B, Haapasalo M (2012) Antibacterial and smear layer removal ability of a novel irrigant, QMiX. Int Endod J 45:363–371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shen Y, Stojicic S, Haapasalo M (2011) Antimicrobial efficacy of chlorhexidine against bacteria in biofilms at different stages of development. J Endod 37:657–661. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wong L, Sissons C (2001) A comparison of human dental plaque microcosm biofilms grown in an undefined medium and a chemically defined artificial saliva. Arch Oral Biol 46:477–486. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sousa EL, Gomes BP, Jacinto RC, Zaia AA, Ferraz CC (2013) Microbiological profile and antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of infected root canals associated with periapical abscesses. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 32:573–580. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shen Y, Stojicic S, Haapasalo M (2010) Bacterial viability in starved and revitalized biofilms: comparison of viability staining and direct culture. J Endod 36:1820–1823. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Formosa LM, Mallia B, Camilleri J (2013) Mineral trioxide aggregate with anti-washout gel properties and microstructure. Dent Mater 29:294–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haapasalo M, Qian W, Portenier I, Waltimo T (2007) Effects of dentin on the antimicrobial properties of endodontic medicaments. J Endod 33:917–925. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hashem AAR, Hassanien EE (2008) ProRoot MTA, MTA Angelus and IRM used to repair large furcation perforations: sealability study. J Endod 34:59–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Guneser MB, Akbulut MB, Eldeniz AU (2013) Effect of various endodontic irrigants on the push-out bond strength of Biodentine and conventional root perforation repair materials. J Endod 39:380–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tran D, Glickman GN, Woodmansey KF (2016) Comparative analysis of calcium silicate-based root filling materials using an open apex model. J Endod 42:654–658. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wang Z, Shen Y, Haapasalo M (2014) Dentin extends the antibacterial effect of endodontic sealers against Enterococcus faecalis biofilms. J Endod 40:505–508. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pappen FG, Shen Y, Qian W, Leonardo MR, Giardino L, Haapasalo M (2010) In vitro antibacterial action of Tetraclean, MTAD and five experimental irrigation solutions. Int Endod J 43:528–535. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Pompermayer Jardine
    • 1
  • Francisco Montagner
    • 1
  • Ramiro Martins Quintana
    • 1
  • Ivana Maria Zaccara
    • 1
  • Patrícia Maria Poli Kopper
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Dentistry Graduate Program, School of DentistryFederal University of Rio Grande do SulPorto AlegreBrazil

Personalised recommendations