Dentistry journal · 2023
Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity of a Bioactive Restorative Material Versus a Glass-Ionomer Cement on Streptococcus Mutans: In-Vitro Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Conti Giulio, Veneri Federica, Amadori Francesca, Garzoni Alba, Majorana Alessandra, Bardellini Elena
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Dental caries management consists of both preventive and restorative approaches. Pediatric dentists can rely on many techniques and materials to restore decayed teeth, but a high failure rate is still observed, mainly due to secondary caries. New restorative bioactive materials combine the mechanical and aesthetic characteristics of resinous materials with the capability to remineralize and the antimicrobial properties of glass ionomers, thus counteracting the occurrence of secondary caries. The aim of this study was to assess the antimicrobial activity against Streptococcus mutans of a bioactive restorative material (ACTIVA™ BioActive-Restorative™-Pulpdent©) and a glass ionomer cement with silver particles added (Ketac™ Silver-3M©), using agar diffusion assay.
METHODS: Each material was formed into disks of 4 mm in diameter, and four discs of each material were placed on nine agar plates. The analysis was repeated seven times.
RESULTS: Both materials showed statistically significant growth inhibition properties against S. mutans (p < 0.05). The difference in the effectiveness of the two materials was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: Both ACTIVA™ and Ketac™ Silver can be recommended since both are similarly effective against S. mutans. However ACTIVA™, given its bioactivity and better aesthetics and mechanical properties compared to GICs, may provide better clinical performance.
METHODS: Each material was formed into disks of 4 mm in diameter, and four discs of each material were placed on nine agar plates. The analysis was repeated seven times.
RESULTS: Both materials showed statistically significant growth inhibition properties against S. mutans (p < 0.05). The difference in the effectiveness of the two materials was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: Both ACTIVA™ and Ketac™ Silver can be recommended since both are similarly effective against S. mutans. However ACTIVA™, given its bioactivity and better aesthetics and mechanical properties compared to GICs, may provide better clinical performance.