An in vitro quantitative antibacterial analysis of amalgam and composite resins.

OBJECTIVES Antibacterial properties of restorative dental materials such as amalgam and composite resins may improve the restorative treatment outcome. This study evaluates the antibacterial properties of three composite resins: Z250, Tetric Ceram, P60 and a dental amalgam in vitro. METHODS Streptococcus mutans and Actinomyces viscosus served as test microorganisms. Three quantitative microtiter spectrophotometric assays were used to evaluate the effect of the restorative materials on: (i) early-stage biofilm using a direct contact test (DCT); (ii) planktonic bacterial growth; (iii) bacterial growth in the materials' elute. For comparison purposes, agar diffusion test (ADT) was also performed. RESULTS The effect of the composite resins on bacterial growth was minimal and limited to a few days only. One-week-aged composites promoted growth of S. mutans and A. viscosus. The antibacterial properties in direct contact were more potent than in planktonic bacterial growth. Amalgam showed complete inhibition of both bacteria in all phases, and the effect lasted for at least 1 week. The materials' elute had no effect on both bacterial growth with the exception of complete inhibition of S. mutans in amalgam. The later results correlated with the ADT. CONCLUSIONS The present findings demonstrate potent and lasting antibacterial properties of amalgam, which are lacking in composite resins. This may explain the clinical observation of biofilm accumulated more on composites compared to amalgams. It follows that the assessment of antibacterial properties of poorly-soluble materials has to employ more than one assay.

[1]  Miller Ga,et al.  Antibacterial activity of dentin bonding systems, resin-modified glass ionomers, and polyacid-modified composite resins. , 1996 .

[2]  I. Mjör,et al.  Mutans Streptococci in Plaque from Margins of Amalgam, Composite, and Glass-ionomer Restorations , 1990, Journal of dental research.

[3]  P. Watnick,et al.  Biofilm, City of Microbes , 2000 .

[4]  W. Eames,et al.  Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures. , 1975, Oral health.

[5]  W. J. Loesche,et al.  The predominant cultivable flora of carious plaque and carious dentine. , 1973, Caries research.

[6]  Kjeld Kr. Skjørland,et al.  Plaque accumulation on different dental filling materials. , 1973 .

[7]  S. Hamada,et al.  Studying initial phase of biofilm formation: molecular interaction of host proteins and bacterial surface components. , 1999, Methods in enzymology.

[8]  Skjorland Kk Bacterial accumulation on silicate and composite materials , 1976 .

[9]  C. Palenik,et al.  Antimicrobial abilities of various dentine bonding agents and restorative materials. , 1996, Journal of dentistry.

[10]  R. Kolter,et al.  [2] Biofilm formation as a developmental process , 2001 .

[11]  K. Skjørland,et al.  Effect of sucrose rinses on bacterial colonization on amalgam and composite. , 1982, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[12]  K. Yoshida,et al.  Antibacterial activity of resin composites with silver-containing materials. , 1999, European journal of oral sciences.

[13]  A. Kolokotronis,et al.  Antibacterial properties of dentin bonding systems, polyacid-modified composite resins and composite resins. , 2001, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[14]  J. Costerton,et al.  Bacterial biofilms in nature and disease. , 1987, Annual review of microbiology.

[15]  R. S. Tobias Antibacterial properties of dental restorative materials: a review. , 2007, International endodontic journal.

[16]  Z. Fuss,et al.  Assessment of antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers by a direct contact test. , 1996, Endodontics & dental traumatology.

[17]  M. Wilson,et al.  Susceptibility of oral bacterial biofilms to antimicrobial agents. , 1996, Journal of medical microbiology.

[18]  T. Attin,et al.  Antibacterial properties of electron beam-sterilized Gutta-Percha cones. , 2001, Journal of endodontics.