Mutans streptococci growth on glass ionomer incorporated with chlorhexidine: in-vivo study
Background: glass ionomer is one of the most frequently used restorative materials for primary teeth restoration. It has been in use for more than 30 years. Their restoration usefulness is preferential compared to other restorations due to their fluoride release and recharge, chemical adhesion to the structure of the dentin and their range of uses. Increasing the antibacterial efficacy of restorative materials is one of the primary goals to decrease the incidence of recurrent caries. Chlorhexidine is the gold standard antibacterial agent in dentistry. Objectives: the objective of this study is to evaluate the antibacterial effect of Chlorhexidine incorporated with glass ionomer on streptococcus mutans. Methods: Thirty Children between ages ranged 6-9 years old were selected to participate in this study. Children with bilateral caries in lower second primary molars affecting the occlusal and proximal surfaces without pulpitis were included in the study. All cavities were divided into two groups; group (A) restored with Glass Ionomer and group (B) restored with Glass Ionomer Chlorhexidine mixture. The sound proximal surfaces in all cavitated teeth acted as a control. After one month, two months and three months’ plaque samples were obtained and streptococcus mutans counts were calculated. Results: The number of SM taken from sound proximal surfaces for all groups were not changed significantly in whole periods of study. At the all-time interval, the mean log10 of SM in CHX group was lower than GI group and the difference was statistically significant. There is a significant difference in the mean log10 of SM in CHX group between the 1St month and the 3rd month. Conclusion: The growth of SM was found to be higher in the sound tooth than in GI groups and in GI group was higher than in CHX- GI mixture up to three months.
Mjör IA, Jokstad A, Qvist V. Longevity of posterior restorations. Int Dent J. 1990 Feb;40(1):11 -7.
Jokstad A, Bayne S, Blunck U, Tyas M, Wilson N. Quality of dental restorations. FDI Commission Project 2 -95. Int Dent J. 2001 Jun;51(3):117 -58.
Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012 Jan;28(1):87 -101. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003.
Hickel R, Kaaden C, Paschos E, Buerkle V, García -Godoy F, Manhart J. Longevity of occlusally -stressed restorations in posterior primary teeth. Am J Dent. 2005 Jun;18(3):198 -211.
Black GV. A work on operative dentistry. Chicago: Medico -Dental Publishing; 1908. (The technical procedures in filling teeth, 2.)
Ripa LW, Leske GS. Two years' effect on the primary dentition of mouth rinsing with a 0.2% neutral NaF solution. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1979 Jun;7(3):151 -3.
Vanderas AP, Manetas C, Koulatzidou M, Papagiannoulis L. Progression of proximal caries in the mixed dentition: a 4 -year prospective study. Pediatr Dent.2003 May -Jun;25(3):229 -34.
Mei ML, Chu CH, Low KH, Che CM, Lo EC. Caries arresting effect of silver diamine fluoride on dentine carious lesion with S. mutans and L. acidophilus dual -species cariogenic biofilm. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013 Nov 1;18(6):e824 -31.
Naik NS, Subba Reddy VV, Shashikiran ND. Comparative evaluation of secondary caries formation around light -cured fluoride -releasing restorative materials. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2017 Jan -Mar;35(1):75 -82. doi:10.4103/0970 -4388.199235.
Al -Sabri FA, El -Marakby AM, Mossa H. Glass Ionomer Cement Release of the Fluoride as Anti -Cariogenic Properties among Four Different Types. Comparative Evaluation. EC Dental Sci. 2017;7(5):185 -92.
Kucukyilmaz E, Savas S, Kavrik F, Yasa B, Botsali MS. Fluoride release/recharging ability and bond strength of glass ionomer cements to sound and caries -affected dentin. Niger J Clin Pract. 2017 Feb;20(2):226 -34. doi: 10.4103/1119 -3077.178917
Raggio DP, Tedesco TK, Calvo AF, Braga MM. Do glass ionomer cements prevent caries lesions in margins of restorations in primary teeth?: A systematic review and meta -analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016 Mar;147(3):177 -85. doi:10.1016/j.adaj.2015.09.016
Sajjan P, Laxminarayan N, Kar PP, Sajjanar R. Chlorhexidine as an antimicrobial agent in dentistry: a review. OHDM 2016;15(2):93 -100.
Guneser MB, Akbulut MB, Eldeniz AU. Antibacterial effect of chlorhexidine -cetrimide combination, Salvia officinalis plant extract and octenidine in comparison with conventional endodontic irrigants. Dent Mater J. 2016;35(5):736 -41
Peedikayil FC, Remy V, John S, Chandru TP, Sreenivasan P, Bijapur GA.Comparison of antibacterial efficacy of coconut oil and chlorhexidine on Streptococcus mutans: An in vivo study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2016 Sep -Oct;6(5):447 -52.
Emilson CG. Susceptibility of various microorganisms to chlorhexidine. Scand J Dent Res. 1977 May;85(4):255 -65. doi: 10.1111/j.1600 -0722.1977.tb00561.x.
Sanders BJ, Gregory RL, Moore K, Avery DR. Antibacterial and physical properties of resin modified glass -ionomers combined with chlorhexidine. J Oral Rehabil. 2002 Jun;29(6):553 -8.
Hoszek A, Ericson D. In vitro fluoride release and the antibacterial effect of glass ionomers containing chlorhexidine gluconate. Oper Dent. 2008 Nov -Dec;33(6):696 -701. doi: 10.2341/08 -20.
Cheng L, Weir MD, Xu HH, Kraigsley AM, Lin NJ, Lin -Gibson S, Zhou X. Antibacterial and physical properties of calcium -phosphate and calcium -fluoride nanocomposites with chlorhexidine. Dent Mater. 2012 May;28(5):573 -83. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2012.01.006.
Palmer G, Jones FH, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. Chlorhexidine release from na experimental glass ionomer cement. Biomaterials. 2004 Oct;25(23):5423 -31.
Lim BS, Cheng Y, Lee SP, Ahn SJ. Chlorhexidine release from orthodontic adhesives after topical chlorhexidine treatment. Eur J Oral Sci. 2013 Jun;121(3 Pt 1):211 -7. doi: 10.1111/eos.12033.
Hook ER, Owen OJ, Bellis CA, Holder JA, O'Sullivan DJ, Barbour ME. Development of a novel antimicrobial -releasing glass ionomer cement functionalized with chlorhexidine hexametaphosphate nanoparticles. J Nanobiotechnology. 2014 Jan 23;12:3. doi: 10.1186/1477 -3155 -12 -3
Wennerholm K, Lindquist B, Emilson CG. The toothpick method in relation to other plaque sampling techniques for evaluating mutans streptococci. Eur J Oral Sci. 1995 Feb;103(1):36 -41.
Davey HM. Life, death, and in -between: meanings and methods in microbiology Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011 Aug 15;77(16):5571 -6. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00744 -11.
Islam B, Khan SN, Khan AU. Dental caries: from infection to prevention. Med Sci Monit. 2007 Nov;13(11):RA196 -203.
Klai S, Altenburger M, Spitzmüller B, Anderson A, Hellwig E, Al -Ahmad A. Antimicrobial effects of dental luting glass ionomer cements on Streptococcus mutans. Scientific World Journal. 2014 Mar 23;2014:807086. doi:10.1155/2014/807086.
Hujoel PP, DeRouen TA. Validity issues in split -mouth trials. J Clin Periodontol. 1992 Oct;19(9 Pt 1):625 -7.
Lesaffre E, Philstrom B, Needleman I, Worthington H. The design and analysis of split -mouth studies: what statisticians and clinicians should know. Stat Med. 2009 Dec 10;28(28):3470 -82. doi: 10.1002/sim.3634
Dasgupta S, Saraswathi MV, Somayaji K, Pentapati KC, Shetty P. Comparative evaluation of fluoride release and recharge potential of novel and traditional fluoride -releasing restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2018 Nov -Dec;21(6):622 -626. doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_338_18.
Forss H, Jokinen J, Spets -Happonen S, Seppä L, Luoma H. Fluoride and mutans streptococci in plaque grown on glass ionomer and composite. Caries Res.1991;25(6):454 -8.
Mota SM, Enoki C, Ito IY, Elias AM, Matsumoto MA. Streptococcus mutans counts in plaque adjacent to orthodontic brackets bonded with resin -modified glass ionomer cement or resin -based composite. Braz Oral Res. 2008 Jan -Mar;22(1):55 -60
Andrucioli MC, Faria G, Nelson -Filho P, Romano FL, Matsumoto MA. Influence of resin -modified glass ionomer and topical fluoride on levels of Streptococcus mutans in saliva and biofilm adjacent to metallic brackets. J Appl Oral Sci. 2017 Mar -Apr;25(2):196 -202.
Mittal S, Soni H, Sharma DK, Mittal K, Pathania V, Sharma S. Comparative evaluation of the antibacterial and physical properties of conventional glass ionomer cement containing chlorhexidine and antibiotics. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015 Jul -Aug;5(4):268 -75. doi: 10.4103/2231 -0762.161754.
Mishra A, Pandey RK, Manickam N. Antibacterial effect and physical properties of chitosan and chlorhexidine -cetrimide -modified glass ionomer cements. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2017 Jan -Mar;35(1):28 -33.
Türkün LS, Türkün M, Ertuğrul F, Ateş M, Brugger S. Long -Term Antibacterial Effects and Physical Properties of a Chlorhexidine - Containing Glass Ionomer Cement. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2008;20(1):29 -44.
Bellis CA, Nobbs AH, O'Sullivan DJ, Holder JA, Barbour ME. Glass ionomer cements functionalised with a concentrated paste of chlorhexidine hexametaphosphate provides dose -dependent chlorhexidine release over at least 14 months. J Dent. 2016 Feb;45:53 -8. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.12.009
Yan H, Yang H, Li K, Yu J, Huang C. Effects of Chlorhexidine -Encapsulated Mesoporous Silica Nanoparticles on the Anti -Biofilm and Mechanical Properties of Glass Ionomer Cement. Molecules. 2017 Jul 21;22(7). pii: E1225. doi:10.3390/molecules22071225.