Technological dental sealants: in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potential
Abstract Background Due to the launch of new self-etching and self-adhesive sealing materials combined with the release of bioactive ions in the dental market, this in vitro study aimed to compare physical values of surface roughness (RS), vickers microhardness (VM), compositional energy dispersive...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-02-01
|
| Series: | BMC Oral Health |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05303-5 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832571221899739136 |
|---|---|
| author | Witalo Pereira de Jesus Luiza de Almeida Queiroz Ferreira Washington Henrique Themoteo da Silva Fernanda Vieira Belém Ana Paula Turrioni Cláudia Silami de Magalhães Mila Fernandes Moreira Madeira Ivana Márcia Alves Diniz Marco Aurelio Benini Paschoal |
| author_facet | Witalo Pereira de Jesus Luiza de Almeida Queiroz Ferreira Washington Henrique Themoteo da Silva Fernanda Vieira Belém Ana Paula Turrioni Cláudia Silami de Magalhães Mila Fernandes Moreira Madeira Ivana Márcia Alves Diniz Marco Aurelio Benini Paschoal |
| author_sort | Witalo Pereira de Jesus |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Due to the launch of new self-etching and self-adhesive sealing materials combined with the release of bioactive ions in the dental market, this in vitro study aimed to compare physical values of surface roughness (RS), vickers microhardness (VM), compositional energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), microbiological tests (inhibition halo-HI and surface microbial adhesion-MAS) and mechanical microshear bond strength (MBS). Methods The following groups were analyzed: Beautisealant® self-etching sealant (Shofu)(G1), FluroShield® conventional sealant (Dentsply)(G2- Control Group), Flow Constic® self-adhesive/self-etching resin (DMG)(G3) and Beautifil Flow Plus F03® conventional resin (Shofu)(G4). For the physical and compositional tests, specimens were molded and submitted to finishing/polishing in a metallographic polisher. RS and VM were measured through 5 readings. For the HI test, specimens were exposed to S. mutans for 24 h in brain–heart infusion (BHI) agar under microaerophilic conditions, with the diameter of the HI (mm) measured by digital caliper. For the MAS test, a bacterial biofilm of S. mutans was induced for five days in BHI broth + 5% sucrose and measurement of CFU/ml (log 10 from serial dilutions). For the MBS test, specimens were made in bovine enamel with the addition of the experimental group FluroShield® (Dentsply) + Single Bond Universal® adhesive (3 M)(G5) and measured in a universal testing machine. Data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests (p < 0.05) using the SPSS software. Results Different compositions proven in the EDS test were not determinants of the promotion of different RS: G1 = 0,19 (± 0,07), G2 = 0,15 (± 0,053), G3 = 0,13 (± 0,046), G4 = 0,14 (± 0,056); HI: G1 = 17,7 (± 1,36), G2 = 18,7 (± 3,47), G3 = 18,9 (± 4,87), G4 = 17,9 (± 3,61) and MAS: G1 = 5,22 (± 0,12), G2 = 5,15 (± 0,15), G3 = 5,12 (± 0,20), G4 = 5,06 (± 0,24). However, statistically influenced the values of VM: G1 = 16,71 (± 1,93), G2 = 16,28 (± 4,91), G3 = 26,11 (± 3,46), G4 = 37.9 (± 4.87), promoted lesser bacterial adhesion (G4 = 5.06 ± 0.24), and demonstrated fluoride ion only in the G4. Higher MBS was found in the conventional materials G5 = 8.38 (± 2.05) and G2 = 6.28 (± 1.35). Conclusions Bioactive materials and self-adhesive/self-etching for sealing pits and fissures did not demonstrate superior mechanical and antimicrobial properties performance compared to conventional techniques. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-296ae4bf1f7d4027ba012e32d7ca1ba5 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1472-6831 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-02-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Oral Health |
| spelling | doaj-art-296ae4bf1f7d4027ba012e32d7ca1ba52025-02-02T12:45:06ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312025-02-0125111110.1186/s12903-024-05303-5Technological dental sealants: in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potentialWitalo Pereira de Jesus0Luiza de Almeida Queiroz Ferreira1Washington Henrique Themoteo da Silva2Fernanda Vieira Belém3Ana Paula Turrioni4Cláudia Silami de Magalhães5Mila Fernandes Moreira Madeira6Ivana Márcia Alves Diniz7Marco Aurelio Benini Paschoal8Dental School, University of São Paulo – USPDental School, Federal University of Minas Gerais – UFMGDental School, Federal University of Uberlândia – UFUDental School, Federal University of Minas Gerais – UFMGDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlandia – UFU, Dental SchoolDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais – UFMG, Dental SchoolDepartment of Microbiology, Federal University of Minas Gerais – UFMG, Institute of Biological SciencesDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais – UFMG, Dental SchoolDepartment of Child and Adolescent Oral Health, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Minas Gerais - UFMGAbstract Background Due to the launch of new self-etching and self-adhesive sealing materials combined with the release of bioactive ions in the dental market, this in vitro study aimed to compare physical values of surface roughness (RS), vickers microhardness (VM), compositional energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), microbiological tests (inhibition halo-HI and surface microbial adhesion-MAS) and mechanical microshear bond strength (MBS). Methods The following groups were analyzed: Beautisealant® self-etching sealant (Shofu)(G1), FluroShield® conventional sealant (Dentsply)(G2- Control Group), Flow Constic® self-adhesive/self-etching resin (DMG)(G3) and Beautifil Flow Plus F03® conventional resin (Shofu)(G4). For the physical and compositional tests, specimens were molded and submitted to finishing/polishing in a metallographic polisher. RS and VM were measured through 5 readings. For the HI test, specimens were exposed to S. mutans for 24 h in brain–heart infusion (BHI) agar under microaerophilic conditions, with the diameter of the HI (mm) measured by digital caliper. For the MAS test, a bacterial biofilm of S. mutans was induced for five days in BHI broth + 5% sucrose and measurement of CFU/ml (log 10 from serial dilutions). For the MBS test, specimens were made in bovine enamel with the addition of the experimental group FluroShield® (Dentsply) + Single Bond Universal® adhesive (3 M)(G5) and measured in a universal testing machine. Data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests (p < 0.05) using the SPSS software. Results Different compositions proven in the EDS test were not determinants of the promotion of different RS: G1 = 0,19 (± 0,07), G2 = 0,15 (± 0,053), G3 = 0,13 (± 0,046), G4 = 0,14 (± 0,056); HI: G1 = 17,7 (± 1,36), G2 = 18,7 (± 3,47), G3 = 18,9 (± 4,87), G4 = 17,9 (± 3,61) and MAS: G1 = 5,22 (± 0,12), G2 = 5,15 (± 0,15), G3 = 5,12 (± 0,20), G4 = 5,06 (± 0,24). However, statistically influenced the values of VM: G1 = 16,71 (± 1,93), G2 = 16,28 (± 4,91), G3 = 26,11 (± 3,46), G4 = 37.9 (± 4.87), promoted lesser bacterial adhesion (G4 = 5.06 ± 0.24), and demonstrated fluoride ion only in the G4. Higher MBS was found in the conventional materials G5 = 8.38 (± 2.05) and G2 = 6.28 (± 1.35). Conclusions Bioactive materials and self-adhesive/self-etching for sealing pits and fissures did not demonstrate superior mechanical and antimicrobial properties performance compared to conventional techniques.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05303-5Dental materialsPit and fissure sealantsSurface propertiesMechanical propertiesLaboratory research |
| spellingShingle | Witalo Pereira de Jesus Luiza de Almeida Queiroz Ferreira Washington Henrique Themoteo da Silva Fernanda Vieira Belém Ana Paula Turrioni Cláudia Silami de Magalhães Mila Fernandes Moreira Madeira Ivana Márcia Alves Diniz Marco Aurelio Benini Paschoal Technological dental sealants: in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potential BMC Oral Health Dental materials Pit and fissure sealants Surface properties Mechanical properties Laboratory research |
| title | Technological dental sealants: in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potential |
| title_full | Technological dental sealants: in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potential |
| title_fullStr | Technological dental sealants: in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potential |
| title_full_unstemmed | Technological dental sealants: in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potential |
| title_short | Technological dental sealants: in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potential |
| title_sort | technological dental sealants in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potential |
| topic | Dental materials Pit and fissure sealants Surface properties Mechanical properties Laboratory research |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-05303-5 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT witalopereiradejesus technologicaldentalsealantsinvitroevaluationofmaterialpropertiesandantibiofilmpotential AT luizadealmeidaqueirozferreira technologicaldentalsealantsinvitroevaluationofmaterialpropertiesandantibiofilmpotential AT washingtonhenriquethemoteodasilva technologicaldentalsealantsinvitroevaluationofmaterialpropertiesandantibiofilmpotential AT fernandavieirabelem technologicaldentalsealantsinvitroevaluationofmaterialpropertiesandantibiofilmpotential AT anapaulaturrioni technologicaldentalsealantsinvitroevaluationofmaterialpropertiesandantibiofilmpotential AT claudiasilamidemagalhaes technologicaldentalsealantsinvitroevaluationofmaterialpropertiesandantibiofilmpotential AT milafernandesmoreiramadeira technologicaldentalsealantsinvitroevaluationofmaterialpropertiesandantibiofilmpotential AT ivanamarciaalvesdiniz technologicaldentalsealantsinvitroevaluationofmaterialpropertiesandantibiofilmpotential AT marcoaureliobeninipaschoal technologicaldentalsealantsinvitroevaluationofmaterialpropertiesandantibiofilmpotential |