Surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on composite materials: an in vitro comparative evaluation

Q4 Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology Biomedicine (India) Pub Date : 2023-08-30 DOI:10.51248/.v43i4.2947
Ishani Sengupta, Mamatha Ballal, Saahithya Mahesh, Shashi Rashmi Acharya
{"title":"Surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on composite materials: an in vitro comparative evaluation","authors":"Ishani Sengupta, Mamatha Ballal, Saahithya Mahesh, Shashi Rashmi Acharya","doi":"10.51248/.v43i4.2947","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction and Aim: Despite being popular, composite materials frequently degrade, and cause secondary caries in the oral cavity. Studies suggest that surface characteristics, particularly surface roughness, can impact the functionality, durability, and biofilm formation of these materials. This study was carried out to evaluate and compare the surface roughness of nano-ceramic restorative and bulk-fill flowable composite materials and their bacterial adhesion properties using Streptococcus mutans. Materials and Methods: 16 disks of each composite type, Ceram x SphereTEC one universal nano-ceramic restorative material and SDR flow plus bulk-fill flowable material were fabricated and grouped as A and B, respectively. 2D surface roughness of the samples were recorded using Contact Profilometer. For bacterial adhesion test, samples were incubated in a culture of S. mutans overnight. Adhered bacteria were determined by spread plate technique, colonies were enumerated and reported as CFU/mL. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests helped determine normality distribution of surface roughness, and statistical significance was analysed using Independent-samples t test. Bacterial adhesion was analysed using Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Surface roughness values were found to be normally distributed, and the difference between the two groups was noted to be statistically significant (p<0.05). However, there was no statistical difference between bacterial adhesion amongst the two materials (p>0.05). Conclusion: Surface roughness value of the nano-ceramic restorative material was lower than that of bulk-fill flowable resin material albeit, the two composites did not show a significant difference in terms of bacterial adherence.","PeriodicalId":35655,"journal":{"name":"Biomedicine (India)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomedicine (India)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51248/.v43i4.2947","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and Aim: Despite being popular, composite materials frequently degrade, and cause secondary caries in the oral cavity. Studies suggest that surface characteristics, particularly surface roughness, can impact the functionality, durability, and biofilm formation of these materials. This study was carried out to evaluate and compare the surface roughness of nano-ceramic restorative and bulk-fill flowable composite materials and their bacterial adhesion properties using Streptococcus mutans. Materials and Methods: 16 disks of each composite type, Ceram x SphereTEC one universal nano-ceramic restorative material and SDR flow plus bulk-fill flowable material were fabricated and grouped as A and B, respectively. 2D surface roughness of the samples were recorded using Contact Profilometer. For bacterial adhesion test, samples were incubated in a culture of S. mutans overnight. Adhered bacteria were determined by spread plate technique, colonies were enumerated and reported as CFU/mL. Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests helped determine normality distribution of surface roughness, and statistical significance was analysed using Independent-samples t test. Bacterial adhesion was analysed using Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Surface roughness values were found to be normally distributed, and the difference between the two groups was noted to be statistically significant (p<0.05). However, there was no statistical difference between bacterial adhesion amongst the two materials (p>0.05). Conclusion: Surface roughness value of the nano-ceramic restorative material was lower than that of bulk-fill flowable resin material albeit, the two composites did not show a significant difference in terms of bacterial adherence.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
复合材料表面粗糙度和细菌粘附:体外比较评价
简介与目的:复合材料虽广受欢迎,但易降解,导致口腔继发性龋病。研究表明,表面特性,特别是表面粗糙度,会影响这些材料的功能、耐久性和生物膜的形成。本研究以变形链球菌为研究对象,评价和比较了纳米陶瓷修复和填充型可流动复合材料的表面粗糙度及其细菌粘附性能。材料与方法:制备每种复合类型的16个圆盘,Ceram x SphereTEC一种通用纳米陶瓷修复材料和SDR流动加块状填充流动材料,分别分为A和B。使用接触式轮廓仪记录样品的二维表面粗糙度。为了进行细菌粘附试验,样品在变形链球菌培养物中孵育过夜。涂布平板法测定粘附菌数,计数菌落,报CFU/mL。Kolmogorov-Smirnov和Shapiro-Wilk检验确定表面粗糙度的正态分布,采用独立样本t检验分析统计显著性。采用Mann-Whitney U检验分析细菌粘附性。结果:表面粗糙度值呈正态分布,两组间差异有统计学意义(p<0.05)。两种材料的细菌粘附性差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。结论:纳米陶瓷修复材料的表面粗糙度值低于填充型可流动树脂材料,但两种复合材料在细菌粘附方面无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Biomedicine (India)
Biomedicine (India) Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (all)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
153
期刊最新文献
Retrospective study of 69 cases of cerebral cystic echinococcosis in patients admitted to National hospital in Bishkek city, Kyrgyzstan Anti-Mullerian hormone and AMH gene (rs3741664) polymorphism analysis in Iraqi women with polycystic ovary syndrome Evaluation of the foundation block of first year MBBS curriculum in a medical college Effectiveness of nurse-led clinical interventions on knowledge, physiological and psychological outcomes, and symptom burden among patients undergoing hemodialysis -Part 1 pilot study Evaluation of liver and renal function tests together with histopathological alterations in rabbits infected with a virulent strain of Proteus vulgaris
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1