Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Effect of two prophylaxis methods on adherence of Streptococcus mutans tomicrofilled composite resin and giomer surfaces
Kimyai, Soodabeh; Lotfipour, Farzaneh; Pourabbas, Reza; Sadr, Alireza; Nikazar, Saeedeh; Milani, Morteza.
Afiliação
  • Kimyai, Soodabeh; Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. School of Dentistry. Department of Operative Dentistry. Tabriz. Iran
  • Lotfipour, Farzaneh; Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. School of Pharmacy. Assistant Professor. Department of Pharmaceutics. Tabriz. Iran
  • Pourabbas, Reza; Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. Dental and Periodontal Research Center. Associate Professor. Tabriz. Iran
  • Sadr, Alireza; Tokyo Medical and Dental University. IRCMSTBD. Global Center of Excellence. s. c. s. p
  • Nikazar, Saeedeh; Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. School of Dentistry. Department of Operative Dentistry. s. c. s. p
  • Milani, Morteza; Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. School of Pharmacy. Department of Microbiology. Tabriz. Iran
Med. oral patol. oral cir. bucal (Internet) ; 16(4): 561-567, jul. 2011. ilus, tab
Artigo em Inglês | IBECS | ID: ibc-93052
Biblioteca responsável: ES1.1
Localização: BNCS
ABSTRACT

Objectives:

Surface attributes of a restoration play an important role in adherence of plaque bacteria. Prophylaxismethods may be involved in modification of or damaging the restoration surface. The aim of the present studywas to evaluate the effect of two prophylaxis methods on adherence of Streptococcus mutans to the surface of tworestorative materials. Study

design:

A total of 60 specimens were prepared from each material; a microfilled compositeresin (HelioProgress) and a giomer (Beautifil II). For each material, the specimens were randomly dividedinto three groups (n=20). Group 1 no prophylaxis treatment (control); Group 2 prophylaxis with pumice andrubber cup; Group 3 prophylaxis with air-powder polishing device (APD). The surfaces of selected specimensfrom each group were evaluated under a scanning electron microscope (SEM), and the surface topography formedby the two prophylaxis methods was determined by atomic force microscopy (AFM). Adherence of Streptococcusmutans to the surface of specimens was determined by the plate counting method following immersion in abacterial innoculum for 4 hours, rinsing and sonication. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and post hocTukey test for multiple comparisons. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05.

Results:

Bacterial adherence wassignificantly affected by both factors restorative material type and prophylaxis method (P<0.0005). Mean bacterialadhesion was significantly higher in composite groups compared to corresponding giomer groups. Withineach material, bacterial adherence was significantly lower in the control group compared to prophylaxis groups.Prophylaxis with pumice and rubber cup resulted in a significantly lower bacterial adherence compared to (..) (AU)
Assuntos
Buscar no Google
Coleções: Bases de dados nacionais / Espanha Base de dados: IBECS Assunto principal: Streptococcus mutans / Aderência Bacteriana / Resinas Compostas Limite: Humanos Idioma: Inglês Revista: Med. oral patol. oral cir. bucal (Internet) Ano de publicação: 2011 Tipo de documento: Artigo Instituição/País de afiliação: Tabriz University of Medical Sciences/Iran / Tabriz University of Medical Sciences/s. p / Tokyo Medical and Dental University/s. p
Buscar no Google
Coleções: Bases de dados nacionais / Espanha Base de dados: IBECS Assunto principal: Streptococcus mutans / Aderência Bacteriana / Resinas Compostas Limite: Humanos Idioma: Inglês Revista: Med. oral patol. oral cir. bucal (Internet) Ano de publicação: 2011 Tipo de documento: Artigo Instituição/País de afiliação: Tabriz University of Medical Sciences/Iran / Tabriz University of Medical Sciences/s. p / Tokyo Medical and Dental University/s. p
...