Surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on composite materials: an in vitro comparative evaluation
Keywords:surface topography, Biofilm, Ceram x SphereTEC one, SDR Flow Plus Bulk-fill flowable, Streptococcus mutans
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.
Gharechahi M., Moosavi H., Forghani M., Effect of surface roughness and materials composition. JBNB. 2012;03(04): 541-546.
Park J.W., An J.S., Lim W.H., Lim B.S., Ahn S.J. Microbial changes in biofilms on composite resins with different surface roughness: An in vitro study with a multispecies biofilm model. J Prosthet Dent.2019;122(5):493.e1-e8.
Yuan C., Wang X., Gao X., Chen .F, Liang X., Li D., Effects of surface properties of polymer-based restorative materials on early adhesion of Streptococcus mutans in vitro. J Dent. 2016; 54:33-40.
Chesterman J., Jowett A., Gallacher A., Nixon P., Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br Dent J. 2017; 222(5):337-344.
Nascimento A.S., Lima D.B., Fook M.V.L., Albuquerque M.S. de, Lima E.A. de, Sabino MA, et al. Physicomechanical characterization and biological evaluation of bulk-fill composite resin. Braz Oral Res. 2018; 25;32:e107.
Motevasselian F., Zibafar E., Yassini E., Mirzaei M., Pourmirhoseni N., Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to microhybrid and nanohybrid resin composites and dental amalgam: An in vitro study. J Dent (Tehran). 2017;14(6):337-343.
Song F., Koo H., Ren D., Effects of Material Properties on Bacterial Adhesion and Biofilm Formation. J Dent Res. 2015; 94(8):1027-1034.
Bilgili D., Dündar A., Barutçugil Ç., Tayfun D., Özyurt Ö.K., Surface properties and bacterial adhesion of bulk-fill composite resins. J Dent. 2020;95:103-317.
Kreve S., Reis A.C.D., Bacterial adhesion to biomaterials: What regulates this attachment? A review. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2021;57:85-96.
Yadav R.D., Raisingani D., Jindal D., Mathur R., A comparative analysis of different finishing and polishing devices on nanofilled, microfilled, and hybrid composite: A scanning electron microscopy and profilometric study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2016;9(3):201-208.
Costa J.D., Ferracane J., Paravina R.D., Mazur R.F., Roeder L., The effect of different polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of various resin composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007;19(4):214-24.
Avsar A., Yuzbasioglu E., Sarac D., The effect of finishing and polishing techniques on the surface roughness and the color of nanocomposite resin restorative materials. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2015;24(5):881-90.
Antonson S.A., Yazici A.R., Kilinc E., Antonson D.E., Hardigan P.C., Comparison of different finishing/polishing systems on surface roughness and gloss of resin composites. J Dent.2011;39: e9-e17.
Baseren M. Surface Roughness of nanofill and nanohybrid composite resin and ormocer-based tooth-colored restorative materials after several finishing and polishing procedures. J Biomater Appl. 2004;19(2):121-134.
Hahnel S., Ionescu A.C., Cazzaniga G., Ottobelli M., Brambilla E., Biofilm formation and release of fluoride from dental restorative materials in relation to their surface properties. J Dent. 2017;60:14-24.
Fúcio S.B.P., Carvalho F.G., Sobrinho L.C., Sinhoreti M.A.C., Puppin-Rontani R.M., The influence of 30-day-old Streptococcus mutans biofilm on the surface of esthetic restorative materials-An in vitro study. J Dent. 2008; 36(10):833-839.
Finer Y., Jaffer F., Santerre J.P., Mutual influence of cholesterol esterase and pseudocholinesterase on the biodegradation of dental composites. Biomaterials. 2004; 25(10):1787-1793.
Dezelic, T., Guggenheim, B., Schmidlin, P.R. Multi-species biofilm formation on dental materials and an adhesive patch. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2009;7(1):47-53.
Asmussen, E. Softening of BISGMA-based polymers by ethanol and by organic acids of plaque. Scand J Dent Res. 1984;92(3):257-261.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2023 Biomedicine
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.