In vitro biofilm formation on resin-based composites after different finishing and polishing procedures

Gloria Cazzaniga, Marco Ottobelli, Andrei C. Ionescu, Gaetano Paolone, Enrico Gherlone, Jack Ferracane, Eugenio Brambilla

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the influence of surface treatments of different resin-based composites (RBCs) on S. mutans biofilm formation. Methods: 4 RBCs (microhybrid, nanohybrid, nanofilled, bulk-filled) and 6 finishing-polishing (F/P) procedures (open-air light-curing, light-curing against Mylar strip, aluminum oxide discs, one-step rubber point, diamond bur, multi-blade carbide bur) were evaluated. Surface roughness (SR) (n = 5/group), gloss (n = 5/group), scanning electron microscopy morphological analysis (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) (n = 3/group), and S. mutans biofilm formation (n = 16/group) were assessed. EDS analysis was repeated after the biofilm assay. A morphological evaluation of S. mutans biofilm was also performed using confocal laser-scanning microscopy (CLSM) (n = 2/group). The data were analyzed using Wilcoxon (SR, gloss) and two-way ANOVA with Tukey as post-hoc tests (EDS, biofilm formation). Results: F/P procedures as well as RBCs significantly influenced SR and gloss. While F/P procedures did not significantly influence S. mutans biofilm formation, a significant influence of RBCs on the same parameter was found. Different RBCs showed different surface elemental composition. Both F/P procedures and S. mutans biofilm formation significantly modified this parameter. Conclusions: The tested F/P procedures significantly influenced RBCs surface properties but did not significantly affect S. mutans biofilm formation. The significant influence of the different RBCs tested on S. mutans biofilm formation suggests that material characteristics and composition play a greater role than SR. Clinical significance: F/P procedures of RBCs may unexpectedly play a minor role compared to that of the restoration material itself in bacterial colonization.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Dentistry
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Composite Resins
Biofilms
X-Ray Emission Spectrometry
In Vitro Techniques
Light
Diamond
Surface Properties
Aluminum Oxide
Rubber
Confocal Microscopy
Electron Scanning Microscopy
Analysis of Variance

Keywords

  • Biofilm
  • Bioreactor
  • Finishing
  • Polishing
  • Resin composites
  • Streptococcus mutans

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

In vitro biofilm formation on resin-based composites after different finishing and polishing procedures. / Cazzaniga, Gloria; Ottobelli, Marco; Ionescu, Andrei C.; Paolone, Gaetano; Gherlone, Enrico; Ferracane, Jack; Brambilla, Eugenio.

In: Journal of Dentistry, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Cazzaniga, Gloria ; Ottobelli, Marco ; Ionescu, Andrei C. ; Paolone, Gaetano ; Gherlone, Enrico ; Ferracane, Jack ; Brambilla, Eugenio. / In vitro biofilm formation on resin-based composites after different finishing and polishing procedures. In: Journal of Dentistry. 2017.
@article{886f2d5b90e84cfe8789771aa791820f,
title = "In vitro biofilm formation on resin-based composites after different finishing and polishing procedures",
abstract = "Objectives: To evaluate the influence of surface treatments of different resin-based composites (RBCs) on S. mutans biofilm formation. Methods: 4 RBCs (microhybrid, nanohybrid, nanofilled, bulk-filled) and 6 finishing-polishing (F/P) procedures (open-air light-curing, light-curing against Mylar strip, aluminum oxide discs, one-step rubber point, diamond bur, multi-blade carbide bur) were evaluated. Surface roughness (SR) (n = 5/group), gloss (n = 5/group), scanning electron microscopy morphological analysis (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) (n = 3/group), and S. mutans biofilm formation (n = 16/group) were assessed. EDS analysis was repeated after the biofilm assay. A morphological evaluation of S. mutans biofilm was also performed using confocal laser-scanning microscopy (CLSM) (n = 2/group). The data were analyzed using Wilcoxon (SR, gloss) and two-way ANOVA with Tukey as post-hoc tests (EDS, biofilm formation). Results: F/P procedures as well as RBCs significantly influenced SR and gloss. While F/P procedures did not significantly influence S. mutans biofilm formation, a significant influence of RBCs on the same parameter was found. Different RBCs showed different surface elemental composition. Both F/P procedures and S. mutans biofilm formation significantly modified this parameter. Conclusions: The tested F/P procedures significantly influenced RBCs surface properties but did not significantly affect S. mutans biofilm formation. The significant influence of the different RBCs tested on S. mutans biofilm formation suggests that material characteristics and composition play a greater role than SR. Clinical significance: F/P procedures of RBCs may unexpectedly play a minor role compared to that of the restoration material itself in bacterial colonization.",
keywords = "Biofilm, Bioreactor, Finishing, Polishing, Resin composites, Streptococcus mutans",
author = "Gloria Cazzaniga and Marco Ottobelli and Ionescu, {Andrei C.} and Gaetano Paolone and Enrico Gherlone and Jack Ferracane and Eugenio Brambilla",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.jdent.2017.07.012",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0300-5712",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - In vitro biofilm formation on resin-based composites after different finishing and polishing procedures

AU - Cazzaniga, Gloria

AU - Ottobelli, Marco

AU - Ionescu, Andrei C.

AU - Paolone, Gaetano

AU - Gherlone, Enrico

AU - Ferracane, Jack

AU - Brambilla, Eugenio

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Objectives: To evaluate the influence of surface treatments of different resin-based composites (RBCs) on S. mutans biofilm formation. Methods: 4 RBCs (microhybrid, nanohybrid, nanofilled, bulk-filled) and 6 finishing-polishing (F/P) procedures (open-air light-curing, light-curing against Mylar strip, aluminum oxide discs, one-step rubber point, diamond bur, multi-blade carbide bur) were evaluated. Surface roughness (SR) (n = 5/group), gloss (n = 5/group), scanning electron microscopy morphological analysis (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) (n = 3/group), and S. mutans biofilm formation (n = 16/group) were assessed. EDS analysis was repeated after the biofilm assay. A morphological evaluation of S. mutans biofilm was also performed using confocal laser-scanning microscopy (CLSM) (n = 2/group). The data were analyzed using Wilcoxon (SR, gloss) and two-way ANOVA with Tukey as post-hoc tests (EDS, biofilm formation). Results: F/P procedures as well as RBCs significantly influenced SR and gloss. While F/P procedures did not significantly influence S. mutans biofilm formation, a significant influence of RBCs on the same parameter was found. Different RBCs showed different surface elemental composition. Both F/P procedures and S. mutans biofilm formation significantly modified this parameter. Conclusions: The tested F/P procedures significantly influenced RBCs surface properties but did not significantly affect S. mutans biofilm formation. The significant influence of the different RBCs tested on S. mutans biofilm formation suggests that material characteristics and composition play a greater role than SR. Clinical significance: F/P procedures of RBCs may unexpectedly play a minor role compared to that of the restoration material itself in bacterial colonization.

AB - Objectives: To evaluate the influence of surface treatments of different resin-based composites (RBCs) on S. mutans biofilm formation. Methods: 4 RBCs (microhybrid, nanohybrid, nanofilled, bulk-filled) and 6 finishing-polishing (F/P) procedures (open-air light-curing, light-curing against Mylar strip, aluminum oxide discs, one-step rubber point, diamond bur, multi-blade carbide bur) were evaluated. Surface roughness (SR) (n = 5/group), gloss (n = 5/group), scanning electron microscopy morphological analysis (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS) (n = 3/group), and S. mutans biofilm formation (n = 16/group) were assessed. EDS analysis was repeated after the biofilm assay. A morphological evaluation of S. mutans biofilm was also performed using confocal laser-scanning microscopy (CLSM) (n = 2/group). The data were analyzed using Wilcoxon (SR, gloss) and two-way ANOVA with Tukey as post-hoc tests (EDS, biofilm formation). Results: F/P procedures as well as RBCs significantly influenced SR and gloss. While F/P procedures did not significantly influence S. mutans biofilm formation, a significant influence of RBCs on the same parameter was found. Different RBCs showed different surface elemental composition. Both F/P procedures and S. mutans biofilm formation significantly modified this parameter. Conclusions: The tested F/P procedures significantly influenced RBCs surface properties but did not significantly affect S. mutans biofilm formation. The significant influence of the different RBCs tested on S. mutans biofilm formation suggests that material characteristics and composition play a greater role than SR. Clinical significance: F/P procedures of RBCs may unexpectedly play a minor role compared to that of the restoration material itself in bacterial colonization.

KW - Biofilm

KW - Bioreactor

KW - Finishing

KW - Polishing

KW - Resin composites

KW - Streptococcus mutans

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85026460927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85026460927&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.07.012

DO - 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.07.012

M3 - Article

C2 - 28750776

AN - SCOPUS:85026460927

JO - Journal of Dentistry

JF - Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0300-5712

ER -