Statement of problem
Streptococcus mutans can adhere at restored tooth margins to cause recurrent caries. Limited information about surface quality and bacterial adherence is available for lithium disilicate ceramic materials.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate how bacterial adherence is influenced by commercially available preparations of lithium disilicate ceramic materials.
Material and methods
Seventeen rectangular specimens (10×10×4 mm) were fabricated for each type of lithium disilicate material: pressed (Press), milled (CAD), fluorapatite layered (ZirPress/Ceram), and glazed (Ceram Glaze). The surface roughness of each specimen was assessed before incubation with wild-type S mutans for 48 hours at 37°C with Brain Heart Infusion broth media under anaerobic conditions. Adherent bacteria were sonicated, diluted, and plated in triplicate for quantification using the plate count method to assay for colony forming units (CFUs) as an indication of bacterial viability. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test (α=.05). The Pearson r was used to evaluate the correlation between surface roughness and adherence.
The surface roughness of Ceram Glaze (1.32 ±0.19 μm) was significantly the highest, followed by ZirPress/Ceram (0.71 ±0.09 μm), which was significantly rougher than the Press (0.11 ±0.02 μm) and CAD (0.10 ±0.02 μm) groups, which were not significantly different from each other. (F=513.898, P<.001). CFUs (cells/mL) of S mutans were also significantly the highest for Ceram Glaze (61.82 ±13.76), followed by ZirPress/Ceram (28.53 ±2.40), which had significantly higher adherence than CAD (12.86 ±1.70) and Press (6.62 ±2.74), which were not significantly different from each other. (F= 201.721, P<.001). A strong positive association was found between bacterial count and surface roughness (r=.95, P<.001).
The surface roughness of differently prepared lithium disilicate ceramic restorations is closely related to the adherence of S mutans.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Development of a laboratory model to assess the removal of biofilm from interproximal spaces by powered tooth brushing.Am J Dent. 2002; 15: 12B-17B
- A method for growing biofilm under low shear at the air-liquid interface using the drip flow biofilm reactor.Nat Protoc. 2009; 4: 783-788
- The Stephan curve revisited.Odontol. 2003; 101: 2-8
- Changes in hydrogen-ion concentrations on tooth surfaces and in carious lesions.J Am Dent Assoc. 1940; 27: 718-723
- The caries environment: saliva, pellicle, diet, and hard tissue ultrastructure.Dent Clin North Am. 2010; 54: 455-467
- Effects of different types of human foods on dental health in experimental animals.J Dent Res. 1966; 45: 1551-1561
- The human oral microbiome.J Bacteriol. 2010; 192: 5001-5017
- Dental plaque as a biofilm and a microbial community−implications for health and disease.BMC Oral Health. 2006; 6: S14
- Quorum sensing and biofilm formation by Streptococcus mutans.Adv Exp Med Biol. 2008; 631: 178-188
- Biology of Streptococcus mutans-derived glucosyltransferases: role in extracellular matrix formation of cariogenic biofilms.Caries Res. 2011; 45: 69-86
- Biofilm formation on dental restorative and implant materials.J Dent Res. 2010; 89: 657-665
- Bacterial interactions in dental biofilm development.J Dent Res. 2009; 88: 982-990
- Beyond the oral microbiome.Environ Microbiol. 2011; 13: 3077-3087
- Interspecies interactions within oral microbial communities.Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2007; 71: 653-670
- Adhesion forces and composition of planktonic and adhering oral microbiomes.J Dent Res. 2014; 93: 84-88
- Effect of adsorption time on the adhesion strength between salivary pellicle and human tooth enamel.J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2015; 42: 257-266
- Reasons for placement and replacement of restorations in student clinics in Manchester and Athens.Eur J Dent Educ. 2000; 4: 153-159
- Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature.Dent Mater. 1997; 13: 258-269
Ivoclar Vivadent. IPS e.max lithium disilicate: the future of all-ceramic dentistry. http://www.glidewelldental.com/downloads/dentist/services/e.max-lithium-disilicate-scientific.pdf. Last accessed September 14, 2015.
- Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17: 68-81
- The difference between substratum surface roughness and microbiological and organic soiling: a review.Biofouling. 2001; 17: 59-71
- The effect of surface roughness of porcelain on the adhesion of oral Streptococcus mutans.J Contemp Dent Pract. 2009; 10: E017-E024
- Comparative evaluation of the efficiency of four ceramic finishing systems.J Int Oral Health. 2013; 5: 59-64
- Effect of surface roughness of porcelain on adhesion of bacteria and their synthesizing glucans.J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 83: 664-667
- Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to uncoated and saliva-coated glass-ceramics and composites.Gen Dent. 2008; 56: 740-747
- Adhesion of oral streptococci to all-ceramics dental restorative materials in vivo.J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008; 19: 3249-3253
- Effect of zeta potential and surface energy on bacterial adhesion to uncoated and saliva-coated human enamel and dentin.J Dent Res. 1988; 67: 1483-1487
- Streptococcal adherence on various restorative materials.J Dent Res. 1988; 67: 588-591
Published online: September 16, 2015
Supported by an American Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics Stanley D. Tylman Research Grant.
© 2015 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.