Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi / 2002 / Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of antibacterial effects of glass-ionomer based restorative materials

Cam-ionomer esaslı restoratif materyallerin antibakteriyel etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi

Pages
277–282
Publication Date
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Statistically analysis showed sig-nificant differences between Ketac Fill Aplicap and Vitremer groups (P

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the antibacterial activity of 4 different glass ionomer based restorative materials and one com-posite resin on Streptococcus mutans, Staphylococcus aureus, Lactobacillus casei and Bacillus subtilis by using the agar plate diffusion method. 10 plates were used for each bacterium that each one included 6 standard holes 4,5 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Plates were incubated at 37$circ$C and observed for 24 hours, 48 hours and 7 days and inhibition zones were measured.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Statistically analysis showed sig-nificant differences between Ketac Fill Aplicap and Vitremer groups (P
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the antibacterial activity of 4 different glass ionomer based restorative materials and one com-posite resin on Streptococcus mutans, Staphylococcus aureus, Lactobacillus casei and Bacillus subtilis by using the agar plate diffusion method. 10 plates were used for each bacterium that each one included 6 standard holes 4,5 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness. Disk shape specimens were prepared on Teflon plates and were placed into the holes. One hole was left empty for control. Plates were incubated at 37$circ$C and observed for 24 hours, 48 hours and 7 days and inhibition zones were measured. The data was evaluated by Variance Analysis and Duncan Test. Statistically analysis showed sig-nificant differences between Ketac Fill Aplicap and Vitremer groups (P

Özet

Bu in vitro çalışmanın amacı; 4 farklı cam ionomer esaslı restotatif materyalin ve bir kompozit rezinin Streptococcus mutans, Staphylococcus aureus, Lactobacillus casei ve Bacillus subtilis üzerine antibakteriyel etkilerinin agar diffizyon yöntemi kullanılarak incelenmesidir. Çalışmada, her bir bakteri için üzerinde 4,5 mm genişliğinde ve 2 mm kalınlığında 6 yuvanın bulunduğu 10 plaka kullanıldı. Disk şeklindeki örnekler teflon kalıplar üzerinde hazırlandıktan sonra bu yuvalara yerleştirildi. Bir yuva boş bırakılarak kontrol grubu olarak incelendi. Plakalar 37$circ$C de inkübe edilerek oluşturdukları inhibisyon bölgeleri 24 saat, 48 saat ve 7 gün boyunca izlendi. Elde edilen veriler Varyans anallizi ve Duncan testi kullanılarak değerlendirildi. İstatistiksel incelemeler Ketac Fiil Aplicap ve Vitremer grupları arasında önemli farklar olduğunu gösterdi (P

🔖

Cite This Article

BAĞIŞ, Y. H. (2022). Evaluation of antibacterial effects of glass-ionomer based restorative materials. Ankara Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 29 - Sayı: 3, 277–282. https://ajindex.com/articles/442283

References (6)

  1. Herrera M, Castillo A, Baca P, Carrion P. Antibacterial activity of glass-ionomer restorative, cements exposed to cavity-producing microorganisms. Oper Dent. 1999;24:286-291
  2. Seppa L, Forss H, Ogaard B. The effect of fluoride application on fluoride release and the antibacterial action of glass ionomers. J Dent Res 1993;72:1310-1314
  3. Loyola-Rodriguez JP, Garcia-Godoy F, Lind-quist R; Growth inhibition of glass ionomer cements on mutans streptococci. Pediatr Dent 1994; 16:346-349 4- Ulusoy N, Atakul F, Turhanoğlu M. Cam ionomer simanlann antibakteriyel özellikleri. AÜ Diş Hek Fak Derg. 1989;16:231-236
  4. DeSchepper EJ, White RR, Lehr W. Antibacterial effects of glass ionomers. Am J Dent 1989;2:51-56
  5. Berg JH, Farrell IE, Brown LR: Class II ionomer/silver cermet restorations and their effect on interproximal growth of mutans streptococ- ci. Pediatr Dent 1990; 12:20-23 7- Akal N, Öztaş N, Ölmez A, Özsan M. Florid içeren restoratif materyallerin sekonder çürük oluşumu üzerine etkisinin in vitro olarak değer- lendirilmesi. GÜ Dişhek Fak Derg 1999:16:23- 29 8- Shaw AJ, Carrick T, McCabe JF. Floride release from glass ionomer and compomer restorative materials: 6 month data. J Dent 1998:26:355-359 9- Rusz IE, Antonucci JM, Eichmiller F, Anderson MH. Adhesive properties of midified glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1992:8:31-36 10- Fraga RC, Siqueira Junior JF, de Uzeda M: In vitro evaluation of antibacterial effects of photo-cured glass ionomer liners and dentin bonding agents during setting. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:483-486 11- Seppa L, Korhonen A, Nuutinen A: Inhibitory effect on S. mutans by fluoride-treated conventional and resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements. Eur J Oral Sci 1995;103:182-185 12- McComb D, Ericson D Antimicrobial action of new, proprietary lining cements. J Dent Res 1987;66:1025-1028 13- Karanika-Kouma A, Dionysopoulos P, Koliniotou-Koubia E, Kolokotronis A.Antibacterial properties of dentin bonding systems, poly acid- modified composite resins and composite resins. J Oral Rehabil. 2001; 28:157-160
  6. Yap AU, Khor E, Foo SH.Fluoride release and antibacterial properties of new-generation tooth-colored restoratives.;Oper Dent 1999;24:297-305 15- Herrera M, Castillo A, Bravo M, Liebana J, Carrion P. Antibacterial activity of resin adhe-sives, glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer in contact with dentin caries samples Oper Dent 2000, 25:265-269 16- DeSchepper EJ, Thrasher MR, Thurmond BA. Antiba