The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 7 ( 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Antimicrobial Effect of an Experimental Glass Ionomer Cement against Pathogens associated with Deep Carious Lesions

Fawaz Siddiqui, Kalepu Vamsi

Keywords : Actinomyces viscosus, Antibacterial, Chlorhexidine, Glass ionomer cement, Lactobacillus casei

Citation Information : Siddiqui F, Vamsi K. Antimicrobial Effect of an Experimental Glass Ionomer Cement against Pathogens associated with Deep Carious Lesions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (7):824-829.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2342

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-01-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To study the antimicrobial effect of chlorhexidine diacetate (CHX-D)-modified type II glass ionomer cement (GIC) against the two predominant deep caries microorganisms, namely Lactobacillus casei and Actinomyces viscosus. Materials and methods: An experimental GIC (ex-GIC) was prepared by mixing CHX-D powder with the powder of type II GIC to obtain 1% (w/w) concentration of CHX-D in the GIC. Antibacterial activity of this ex-GIC was tested against L. casei and A. viscosus using the agar diffusion method. The ex-GIC specimens were tested in their unset and set forms for each bacterium. For the unset group, specimens were placed in each agar plate immediately after manipulation and for the set group, specimens were placed in each agar plate, 1 hour after manipulation. The inhibition zones on the agar plate were recorded in millimeters immediately on placement of the specimen in the agar plate and after 48 hours. The reading was recorded and statistically analyzed for significant difference. Results: Mann–Whitney U test showed statistically significant difference in the inhibition zones produced by ex-GIC against L. casei and A. viscosus when both were compared in unset (p-value = 0.002) and set (p-value = 0.031) groups. For both the groups, the zone of inhibition against L. casei was greater. Though the unset group recorded wider zone of inhibition, the difference was not significant when compared with the respective set group. This was true for both the bacterial groups. Conclusion: The 1% CHX-D-modified type II GIC showed antibacterial property against L. casei and A. viscosus and significantly higher activity against L. casei. Clinical significance: Addition of 1% CHX-D to type II GIC showed evidence of antibacterial activity against organisms found in deep carious lesion and therefore may exhibit superior antimicrobial efficiency when used as an intermediate therapeutic restoration in deep cavities.

PDF Share
  1. Banerjee A, Frencken JE, Schwendicke F, Innes NPT. Contemporary operative caries management: consensus recommendations on minimal invasive caries removal. Br Dent J 2017 Aug;223(3):215-222.
  2. Marsh, PD.; Martin, MV. Oral microbiology. 5th ed. Edinburg (NY): Elsevier; 2009. p. 222.
  3. Lennon AM, Attin T, Martens S, Buchalla W. Fluorescenceaided caries excavation (FACE), caries detector and conventional caries excavation in primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2009 Jul-Aug;31(4):316-319.
  4. Kidd EA, Joyston-Bechal S, Beighton D. The use of a caries detector dye during cavity preparation: a microbiological assessment. Br Dent J 1993 Apr;174(7):245-248.
  5. Bjorndal L, Larsen T. Changes in the cultivable flora in deep carious lesions following a stepwise excavation procedure. Caries Res 2000 Nov-Dec;34(6):502-508.
  6. Weerheijm KL, Kreulen CM, de Soet JJ, Groen HJ, van Amerongen WE. Bacterial counts in carious dentine under restorations: 2-year in vivo effects. Caries Res 1999;33(2):130-134.
  7. Pinto AS, de Araujo FB, Franzon R, Figueiredo MC, Henz S, Garcia-Godoy F, Maltz M. Clinical and microbiological effect of calcium hydroxide protection in indirect pulp capping in primary teeth. Am J Dent 2006 Dec;19(6):382-387.
  8. Duque C, Negrini Tde C, Sacono NT, Spolidorio DM, de Souza Costa CA, Hebling J. Clinical and microbiological performance of resin-modified glass-ionomer liners after incomplete dentine caries removal. Clin Oral Invest 2009 Dec;13(4):465-471.
  9. Bergenholtz G, Cox CF, Loesche WJ, Syed SA. Bacterial leakage around dental restorations: its effect on the dental pulp. J Oral Pathol 1982 Dec;11(6):439-450.
  10. DeSchepper EJ, Thrasher MR, Thurmond BA. Antibacterial effects of light cured liners. Am J Dent 1989 Jun;2(3):74-76.
  11. Herrera M, Castillo A, Baca A, Carrion P. Antibacterial activity of glass-ionomer restorative cements exposed to cavityproducing microorganisms. Oper Dent 1999 Sep-Oct;24(5)286-291.
  12. Herrera M, Castillo A, Bravo M, Liebana J, Carrion P. Antibacterial activity of resin adhesives, glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer in contact with dentin caries samples. Oper Dent 2000 Jul-Aug;25(4):265-269.
  13. Jedrychowski JR, Caputo AA, Kerper S. Antibacterial and mechanical properties of restorative materials combined with chlorhexidines. J Oral Rehabil 1983 Sep;10(5):373-381.
  14. Ribeiro J, Ericson D. In vitro antibacterial effect of chlorhexidine added to glass ionomer cements. Scand J Dent Res 1991 Dec;99(6):533-540.
  15. Takahashi Y, Imazato S, Kaneshiro AV, Ebisu S, Frencken JE, Tay FR. Antibacterial effects and physical properties of glass-ionomer cements containing chlorhexidine for the ART approach. Dent Mater 2006 Jul;22(7):647-652.
  16. Deepalakshmi M, Poorni S, Miglani R, Rajajmani I, Ramachandran S. Evaluation of the antibacterial and physical properties of glass ionomer cements containing chlorhexidine and cetrimide: an in-vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2010 Oct-Dec;21(4):552-556.
  17. Hoszek A, Ericson D. In vitro fluoride release and the antibacterial effect of glass ionomer containing chlorhexidine gluconate. Oper Dent 2008 Nov-Dec;33(6):696-701.
  18. Schwendicke F. Contemporary concepts in caries tissue removal: a review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017 Nov;29(6):403-408.
  19. Siddiqui F, Karkare S. Sealing ability of nano-ionomer in primary teeth: an ex vivo study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016 Jul-Sep;9(3):209-213.
  20. Hajishengallis E, Parsaei Y, Klein MI, Koo H. Advances in the microbial etiology and pathogenesis of early childhood caries. Mol Oral Microbiol 2017 Feb;32(1):24-34.
  21. Ferreira GL, Alves LA, Jovito VC, de Carvalho FG, de Castro RD. Antibacterial activity of glass ionomer cements on cariogenic bacteria—an in vitro study. Int J Dent Clin 2011 Jan; 3(3):1-3.
  22. Mahesk Kumar M, Mithun Pai BH, Prashant GM, Subba Reddy VV, Mohan Das U, Madura C, Chandu GN. Antibacterial properties of fluoride releasing glass ionomer cements (GICs) and pit and fissure sealants on Streptococcus mutans. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2010 May-Aug;3(2):93-96.
  23. Mc Comb D, Ericson D. Antimicrobial action of new, proprietary lining cements. J Dent Res1987 May;66(5):1025-1028.
  24. DeSchepper EJ, White RR, von der Leh W. Antibacterial effect of glass ionomers. Am J Dent 1989 Apr;2(2):51-56.
  25. Vermeersch G, Leloup G, Delmée M, Vreven J. Antibacterial activity of glass ionomer cements, compomers and resin composites: relationship between acidity and material setting phase. J Oral Rehabil 2005 May;32(5):368-374.
  26. Weerheijm KL, de Soet JJ, van Amerongen WE, de Graaff J. The effect of glass ionomer cement on carious dentine: an in vivo study. Caries Res 1993 Feb;27(5):417-423.
  27. Miller BH, Komatsu H, Nakajima H, Okabe T. Effect of glass ionomer manipulation on early fluoride release. Am J Dent 1995 Aug;8(4):182-186.
  28. Tam LE, Chan GP, Yim D. In vitro caries inhibition effects by conventional and resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Oper Dent 1997 Jan-Feb;22(1):4-14.
  29. Dunne SM, Goolnik JS, Millar BJ, Seddon RP. Caries inhibition by a resin modified and a conventional glass ionomer cement, in vitro. J Dent 1996 Jan-Mar;24(1-2):91-94.
  30. Botelho MG. Compressive strength of glass ionomer cements with dental antibacterial agents. SADJ 2004 Mar;59(2):51-53.
  31. Türkün LS, Türkün M, Ertuðrul F, Ateþ M, Brugger S. Long-term antibacterial effects and physical properties of a chlorhexidine-containing glass ionomer cement. J Esthet Restor Dent 2008 Feb;20(1):29-45.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.