{"title":"复合材料表面粗糙度和细菌粘附:体外比较评价","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
Surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on composite materials: an in vitro comparative evaluation
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.