Surface Roughness and Microbial Adhesion After Finishing of Alkasite Restorative Material

Choa Park (박초아); Howon Park (박호원); LEE JU HYUN (이주현); Hyunwoo Seo (서현우); Lee, Si Young (이시영)

doi:10.5933/JKAPD.2020.47.2.188

Surface Roughness and Microbial Adhesion After Finishing of Alkasite Restorative Material

Journal of the Korean academy of pediatric dentistry
Abbr : J Korean Acad Pediatr Dent
2020, 47(2), pp.188-195
DOI : 10.5933/JKAPD.2020.47.2.188
Publisher : The Korean Academy Of Pediatric Dentistry
Research Area : Medicine and Pharmacy > Dentistry
Received : September 8, 2019
Accepted : November 18, 2019
Published : May 29, 2020

Choa Park ¹, Howon Park ², LEE JU HYUN ², Hyunwoo Seo ², Lee, Si Young ²

¹강릉원주대학교 치과대학 소아치과학교실 및 구강과학연구소
²강릉원주대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

This study is aimed to evaluate and compare the surface roughness and microbial adhesion to alkasite restorative material (Cention N), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and composite resin. And to examine the correlation between bacterial adhesion and surface roughness by different finishing systems. Specimens were fabricated in disk shapes and divided into four groups by finishing methods (control, carbide bur, fine grit diamond bur, and white stone bur). Surface roughness was tested by atomic force microscope and surface observation was performed by scanning electron microscope. Colony forming units were measured after incubating Streptococcus mutans biofilm on specimens using CDC biofilm reactor. Cention N surface roughness was less than 0.2 μm after finishing procedure. Control specimens of resin and Cention N specimens were significantly (p = 0.01) rougher. Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC = 0.13) indicated a weak correlation between surface roughness and S. mutans adhesion to the specimens. Compared with resin specimens, RMGI and Cention N showed lower microbial adhesion. Surface roughness and bacterial adhesion were not significantly different, regardless of the finishing systems.

KEYWORDS

Cention N, Alkasite restorative, Surface roughness, Bacterial adhesion

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

[journal] Bharti R / 2010 / Dental amalgam : An update / J Conserv Dent 13 : 204~208

[journal] A. C. O. S. AFFAIRS / 1998 / Dental amalgam : Update on safety concerns / J Am Dent Assoc 129 : 494~503

[journal] Kaur M / 2019 / A comparative evaluation of compressive strength of Cention N with glass ionomer cement : An in-vitro study / Int J Appl Dent Sci 5 : 5~9

[journal] Patki B / 2013 / Direct permanent restoratives-amalgam vs composite / J Evol Med Dent Sci 46 : 8912~8918

[journal] Samanta S / 2017 / Comparison of microleakage in class V cavity restored with flowable composite resin, glass ionomer cement and cention N / Imp J Interdiscip Res 3 : 180~183

[journal] Jagvinder M / 2018 / Cention N : A review / Int Cur Res 10 : 69111~69112

[web] Ivoclar Vivadent AG / Cention N. Scientific documentation 2016 / https://mena.ivoclarvivadent.com/en-me/download-center/scientific-documentation/#C

[journal] Debolina C / 2018 / Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of dental amalgam, Z350 composite resin and cention-N restoration in class II cavity / J Dent Med Sci 17 : 52~56

[journal] Kumari CM / 2018 / Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy / J Conserv Dent 19 : 56~62

[journal] Setty A / 2019 / Comparative evaluation of surface roughness of novel resin composite Cention N with Filtek Z350 XT : In vitro study / Int J Oral Care and Res 7 : 15~17

[journal] Bollen CM / 1997 / Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention : a review of the literature / Dent Mater 13 : 258~269

[journal] Rai R / 2013 / In vitro evaluation of the effect of two finishing and polishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials / J Conserv Dent 16 : 564~567

[journal] Wilder AD Jr / 2000 / Effect of finishing technique on the microleakage and surface texture of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials / J Dent 28 : 367~373

[journal] An JS / 2017 / Compositional differences in multi-species biofilms formed on various orthodontic adhesives / Eur J Orthod 39 : 528~533

[journal] Svanberg M / 1990 / Mutans Streptococci in plaque from margins of amalgam, composite, and glassionomer restorations / J Dent Res 69 : 861~864

[journal] de Fúcio SB / 2009 / Analyses of biofilms accumulated on dental restorative materials / Am J Dent 22 : 131~136

[journal] Gama-Teixeira A / 2007 / Streptococcus mutans-induced secondary caries adjacent to glass ionomer cement, composite resin and amalgam restorations in vitro / Braz Oral Res 21 : 368~374

[journal] Eick S / 2004 / Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to various restorative materials in a continuous flow system / J Oral Rehabil 31 : 278~285

[journal] Gupta N / 2019 / Comparison of fluoride ion release and alkalizing potential of a new bulk-fill alkasite / J Conserv Dent 22 : 296~299

[journal] Bayrak GD / 2017 / Effect of two different polishing systems on fluoride release, surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of newly developed restorative materials / J Esthet Restor Dent 29 : 424~434

KJCKorea
Journal Central

Journal of the Korean academy of pediatric dentistry 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.48

Surface Roughness and Microbial Adhesion After Finishing of Alkasite Restorative Material

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

Journal of the Korean academy of pediatric dentistry 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.48

Surface Roughness and Microbial Adhesion After Finishing of Alkasite Restorative Material

ABSTRACT

KEYWORDS

Statistics

Tools

Issue List

Citation status

KCI Citation Counts (1)

REFERENCES (20) * References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

Search PDF

Citation

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.