Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biofilm formation on different materials for tooth restoration: analysis of surface characteristics

  • Published:
Journal of Materials Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of roughness parameters and hydrophobicity of restorative material used to restore non-carious cervical lesions on the biofilm formation. Four restorative materials were investigated: conventional glass ionomer cement (KF, Ketac Fill Plus, 3M ESPE), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (VT, Vitremer, 3M ESPE), nanofilled resin-modified glass ionomer cement (KN, Ketac Nano, 3M ESPE), and nanofilled resin composite (FZ, Filtek Z350 XT, 3M ESPE). Forty disk specimens were prepared from each material, dived in four groups. Five samples were used for topography parameters analysis using a 3D profilometry. The amplitude parameters (Sa and Sq), spatial parameter (Sds), and hybrid parameter (Ssc) were extracted in area using cut-off of 0.25 mm. Hydrophobicity was determined by the contact angle measurement of deionized water on the surface. The biofilm collected from a 24-year-old subject was grown on modified brain–heart infusion agar under aerobic conditions at 37 °C for 24 h. Each test disk was immersed in 200 µL of biofilm suspension (n = 10) and incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. Biofilm was evaluated after 24 h formation on each disk after stained with 1 % fluorescein using confocal laser-scanning microscopy. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (α = 0.05), Pearson correlation was used to compare topography parameters with biofilm formation. Significant differences were found in related amplitude parameters (Sa and Sq, FZ = KN > VT > KF). KN presented the highest hydrophobicity. FZ and KN presented the lowest thickness and biovolume of biofilm when compared with VT and KF. All topography parameters were significantly correlated with biofilm formation. FZ and KN, material with nanoparticles presented better performance-related topography parameters and biofilm formation. Clinical relevance: The incorporation of nanotechnology into restorative materials promotes better surface topography with lower biofilm formation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kim SY, Lee KW, Seong SR et al (2009) Two-year clinical effectiveness of adhesives and retention form on resin composite restorations of non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 34:507–515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wood ID, Kassir AS, Brunton PA (2009) Effect of lateral excursive movements on the progression of abfraction lesions. Oper Dent 34:273–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Grippo JO (1991) Abfractions: a new classification of hard tissue lesions of teeth. J Esthet Dent 3:14–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sangnes G, Gjermo P (1976) Prevalence of oral soft and hard tissue lesions related to mechanical toothcleansing procedures. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 4:77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Löe H, Anerud A, Boysen H (1992) The natural history of periodontal disease in man: prevalence, severity, and extent of gingival recession. J Periodontol 63:489–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Serino G, Wennström JL, Lindhe J et al (1994) The prevalence and distribution of gingival recession in subjects with high standard of oral hygiene. J Clin Periodontol 21:57–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Santamaria MP, Suaid FF, Casati MZ et al (2008) Coronally positioned flap plus resin-modified glass ionomer restoration for the treatment of gingival recession associated with non-carious cervical lesions: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Periodontol 79:621–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Buergers R, Rosentritt M, Handel G (2007) Bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to provisional fixed prosthodontic material. J Prosthet Dent 98:461–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Steinberg D, Eyal S (2002) Early formation of Streptococcus sobrinus biofilm on various dental restorative materials. J Dent 30:47–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Padbury A Jr, Eber R, Wang HL (2003) Interactions between the gingiva and the margin of restorations. J Clin Periodontol 30:379–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Roman-Torres CV, Cortelli SC, de Araujo MW et al (2006) A short-term clinical and microbial evaluation of periodontal therapy associated with amalgam overhang removal. J Periodontol 77:1591–1597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hahnel S, Rosentritt M, Burgers R et al (2008) Surface properties and in vitro Streptococcus mutans adhesion to dental resin polymers. J Mater Sci Mater Med 19:2619–2627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Park JW, Song CW, Jung JH et al (2012) The effects of surface roughness of composite resin on biofilm formation of Streptococcus mutans in the presence of saliva. Oper Dent 37:532–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Quirynen M, Marechal M, Busscher HJ et al (1989) The influence of surface free-energy on planimetric plaque growth in man. J Dent Res 68:796–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brentel AS, Kantorski KZ, Valandro LF et al (2011) Confocal laser microscopic analysis of biofilm on newer feldspar ceramic. Oper Dent 36:43–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN (2003) An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 134:1382–1390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. de Paula AB, Fucio SB, Ambrosano GM et al (2011) Biodegradation and abrasive wear of nano restorative materials. Oper Dent 36:670–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Heydorn A, Nielsen AT, Hentzer M et al (2000) Quantification of biofilm structures by the novel computer program COMSTAT. Microbiology 146:2395–2407

    Google Scholar 

  19. Petrisor AI, Cuc A, Decho AW (2004) Reconstruction and computation of microscale biovolumes using geographical information systems: potential difficulties. Res Microbiol 155:447–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gadelmawla ES, Koura MM, Maksoud TMA et al (2002) Roughness parameters. J Mater Process Technol 123:133–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kakaboura A, Fragouli M, Rahiotis C et al (2007) Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. J Mater Sci Mater Med 18:155–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Al-Shammery HAO, Bubb NL, Youngson CC et al (2007) The use of confocal microscopy to assess surface roughness of two milled CAD–CAM ceramics following two polishing techniques. Dent Mater 23:736–741

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Janus J, Fauxpointa G, Arntzc Y et al (2010) Surface roughness and morphology of three nanocomposites after two different polishing treatments by a multitechnique approach. Dent Mater 26:416–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ereifej N, Oweis Y, Eliades G (2013) The effect of polishing technique on 3-D surface roughness and gloss of dental restorative resin composites. Oper Dent 38:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Palmer RJ Jr, Sternberg C (1999) Modern microscopy in biofilm research: confocal microscopy and other approaches. Curr Opin Biotechnol 10:263–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Marghalani HY (2010) Effect of filler particles on surface roughness of experimental composite series. J Appl Oral Sci 18:59–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kooi T, Tan Q, Yap A et al (2012) Effects of food-simulating liquids on surface properties of giomer restoratives. Oper Dent 37:665–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bala O, Arisu HD, Yikilgan I et al (2012) Evaluation of surface roughness and hardness of different glass ionomer cements. Eur J Dent 6:79–86

    Google Scholar 

  29. Rimondini L, Farè S, Brambilla E et al (1997) The effect of surface roughness on early in vivo plaque colonization on titanium. J Periodontol 68:556–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Quirynen M, Marechal M, Busscher HJ et al (1989) The influence of surface free-energy on planimetric plaque growth in man. J Dent Res 68:796–799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Quirynen M, Marechal M, Busscher HJ et al (1990) The influence of surface free energy and surface roughness on early plaque formation. An in vivo study in man. J Clin Periodontol 17:138–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Busscher HJ, Rinastiti M, Siswomihardjo W et al (2010) Biofilm formation on dental restorative and implant materials. J Dent Res 89:657–665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Carlén A, Nikdel K, Wennerberg A et al (2001) Surface characteristics and in vitro biofilm formation on glass ionomer and composite resin. Biomaterials 22:481–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Quirynen M, Bollen CM (1995) The influence of surface roughness and surface free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol 22:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Beyth N, Bahir R, Matalon S et al (2008) Streptococcus mutans biofilm changes surface topography of resin composites. Dent Mater 24:732–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Souza RP, Zani IC, Lima JP et al (2009) In situ effects of restorative materials on dental biofilm and enamel demineralization. J Dent 37:44–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Al-Naimi OT, Itota T, Hobson RS et al (2008) Fluoride release for restorative materials and its effect on biofilm formation in natural saliva. J Mater Sci Mater Med 19:1243–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Poggio C, Arciola CR, Rosti F, Scribante A, Saino E, Visai L (2009) Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to different restorative materials. Int J Artif Organs 32(9):671–677

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rüttermann S, Bergmann N, Beikler T, Raab WH, Janda R (2012) Bacterial viability on surface-modified resin-based dental restorative materials. Arch Oral Biol 57(11):1512–1521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Marsh PD (2005) Dental plaque: biological significance of a biofilm and community life-style. J Clin Periodontol 32(Suppl 6):7–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to FAPEMIG for financial support; the Microscopy Laboratory, Federal University of Uberlandia for the contribution of the confocal images and the Microbiology Laboratory, Technical School of Health of Federal University of Uberlandia for biofilm formation.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this article certify that they have no proprietary, financial, or other personal interest of any nature or type in any product, service, or company that is mentioned in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dental School, Federal University of Uberlandia, Uberlandia, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Juliana Silvério Flausino

  2. Biomechanics Research Group, Department of Periodontology and Implantology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlandia, Uberlandia, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Priscilla Barbosa Ferreira Soares

  3. Biomechanics Research Group, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlandia, Uberlandia, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Valessa Florindo Carvalho

  4. Department of Periodontology and Implantology, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlandia, Uberlandia, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Denildo Magalhães

  5. School of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Uberlandia, Uberlandia, Minas Gerais, Brazil

    Washington Martins da Silva & Henara Lillian Costa

  6. Biomechanics Research Group, Department of Operative Dentistry and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlandia, Av. Pará, nº 1720 - Bloco 4L Anexo A – Sala 4LA42 – , Bloco 4L, Anexo A, Sala 4LA, Uberlandia, Minas Gerais, CEP 38400-902, Brazil

    Carlos José Soares

Authors
  1. Juliana Silvério Flausino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Priscilla Barbosa Ferreira Soares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Valessa Florindo Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Denildo Magalhães
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Washington Martins da Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Henara Lillian Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Carlos José Soares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos José Soares.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Flausino, J.S., Soares, P.B.F., Carvalho, V.F. et al. Biofilm formation on different materials for tooth restoration: analysis of surface characteristics. J Mater Sci 49, 6820–6829 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-014-8384-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-014-8384-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation