Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.01520
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Adesão de biofilmes monoespécie de Streptococcus mutans e Candida albicans em diferentes superfícies de resinas compostas convencionais e bulk fill

Adhesion of monospecies biofilms from Streptococcus mutans and Candida albicans to different surfaces of conventional composite resins and bulk fill

Arella Cristina Muniz BRITO; Isis Morais BEZERRA; Maria Heloísa de Souza BORGES; Rênnis de Oliveira da SILVA; Francisco Naldo GOMES FILHO; Leopoldina de Fátima Dantas de ALMEIDA

Downloads: 0
Views: 51

Resumo

Resumo: Introdução: As resinas compostas são alternativas restauradoras, porém sua superfície pode favorecer o acúmulo de biofilme.

Objetivo: Analisar in vitro a adesão de biofilmes de Streptococcus mutans (UA159) e Candida albicans (ATCC 90028) em superfícies de resinas compostas convencionais e bulk fill.

Material e método: Foram utilizadas quatro marcas de resinas compostas e bulk fill: Aura Bulk Fill - SDI®; Premisa - Kerr®; Opallis- FGM®, e Filtek bulk fill flow - 3M®. Utilizou-se saliva artificial para formação da película salivar, por 60 min a 37 °C. O inóculo foi padronizado em 1×108 UFC/mL para S. mutans e 1×106 UFC/mL para C. albicans. Os espécimes (n=8/grupo) foram acondicionados em placas de 24 poços, com BHI suplementado com sacarose para as bactérias, e RPMI 1640, para os fungos. A formação do biofilme foi avaliada considerando as unidades formadoras de colônia (UFC/mL).Os dados foram analisados por ANOVA e Tukey (p<0,05).

Resultado: Para os biofilmes de S. mutans, não houve diferença significativa na contagem de UFC/mL entre os diferentes tipos de resina (p=0,119). Na contagem de UFC/mL para biofilme de Candida, as médias variaram entre 7,78 e 8,34. Houve diferença significativa entre as marcas, especialmente entre as resinas convencionais e bulk fill.

Conclusão: O presente estudo demonstra que não há diferença na adesão para biofilmes de S. mutans. Porém, há diferença na adesão da C. albicans na superfície de diferentes resinas compostas.

Palavras-chave

Streptococcus mutans, Candida albicans, restauração dentária permanente, materiais dentários

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Composite resins are restorative alternatives, but their surface may favor the accumulation of biofilm.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the in vitro adhesion of Streptococcus mutans (UA159) and Candida albicans (ATCC 90028) biofilms on the surface of conventional and bulk fill composites.

Material and method: Four brands of conventional and bulk fill composites were used, Aura Bulk Fill - SDI®, Premisa - Kerr®, Opallis- FGM® and Filtek bulk fill flow - 3M®. Artificial saliva was used to form the salivary film for 60 min at 37 ° C. The inoculum was standardized at 1x108 CFU/mL for S. mutans and 1x106 CFU/mL for C. albicans. The specimens (n = 8/group) were placed in 24-well plates, with BHI supplemented with sucrose for bacteria and RPMI 1640 for fungi. The biofilm formation was evaluated considering the colony forming units (CFU/mL). The data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey test (p <0.05).

Result: For S. mutans biofilms, there was no significant difference in the CFU/mL count between the different types of composites (p = 0.119). In the CFU / mL count for C.albicans biofilm, the CFU/mL ranged from 7.78 to 8.34. There was a significant difference between brands for Candida, especially between conventional and bulk fill composites.

Conclusion: The present study demonstrates that there is no difference in adhesion for S. mutans biofilms. On the other hand, there is a difference in the adhesion of C. albicans to the surface of different composite resins.
 

Keywords

Streptococcus mutans, Candida albicans, dental restoration, permanent, dental materials

References

1 Rasines Alcaraz MG, Veitz-Keenan A, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, Davis D, Iheozor-Ejiofor Z. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar;(3):CD005620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005620.pub2. PMid:24683067.

2 Cazzaniga G, Ottobelli M, Ionescu AC, Paolone G, Gherlone E, Ferracane JL, et al. In vitro biofilm formation on resin-based composites after different finishing and polishing procedures. J Dent. 2017 Dec;67:43-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.07.012. PMid:28750776.

3 Bayraktar Y, Ercan E, Hamidi MM, Çolak H. One-year clinical evaluation of different types of bulk-fill composites. J Investig Clin Dent. 2017 May;8(2):e12210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12210. PMid:26800647.

4 Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJM. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012 Jan;28(1):87-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.003. PMid:22192253.

5 El-Damanhoury H, Platt J. Polymerization shrinkage stress kinetics and related properties of bulk-fill resin composites. Oper Dent. 2014 Jul-Aug;39(4):374-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.2341/13-017-L. PMid:23865582.

6 Fúcio SB, Carvalho FG, Sobrinho LC, Sinhoreti MA, Puppin-Rontani RM. The influence of 30-day-old Streptococcus mutans biofilm on the surface of esthetic restorative materials — an in vitro study. J Dent. 2008 Oct;36(10):833-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.06.002. PMid:18621456.

7 Spencer P, Ye Q, Misra A, Goncalves SEP, Laurence JS. Proteins, pathogens, and failure at the composite-tooth interface. J Dent Res. 2014 Dec;93(12):1243-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022034514550039. PMid:25190266.

8 Zhang N, Melo MAS, Weir MD, Reynolds MA, Bai Y, Xu HHK. Do dental resin composites accumulate more oral biofilms and plaque than amalgam and glass ionomer materials? Materials (Basel). 2016 Nov;9(11):888. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma9110888. PMid:28774007.

9 Ono M, Nikaido T, Ikeda M, Imai S, Hanada N, Tagami J, et al. Surface properties of resin composite materials relative to biofilm formation. Dent Mater J. 2007 Sep;26(5):613-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.4012/dmj.26.613. PMid:18203458.

10 Delaviz Y, Finer Y, Santerre JP. Biodegradation of resin composites and adhesives by oral bacteria and saliva: a rationale for new material designs that consider the clinical environment and treatment challenges. Dent Mater. 2014 Jan;30(1):16-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.08.201. PMid:24113132.

11 Salli KM, Ouwehand AC. The use of in vitro model systems to study dental biofilms associated with caries: a short review. J Oral Microbiol. 2015 Mar;7(1):26149. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/jom.v7.26149. PMid:25740099.

12 Ionescu AC, Cazzaniga G, Ottobelli M, Ferracane JL, Paolone G, Brambilla E. In vitro biofilm formation on resin-based composites cured under different surface conditions. J Dent. 2018 Oct;77:78-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.07.012. PMid:30030124.

13 Dige I, Nyvad B. Candida species in intact in vivo biofilm from carious lesions. Arch Oral Biol. 2019 May;101:142-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2019.03.017. PMid:30933902.

14 Coronado-Castellote L, Jiménez-Soriano Y. Clinical and microbiological diagnosis of oral candidiasis. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013 Dec;5(5):e279-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.51242. PMid:24455095.

15 Beldüz N, Kamburoğlu A, Yıllmaz Y, Tosun İ, Beldüz M, Kara C. Evaluation of Candida albicans biofilm formation on various dental restorative material surfaces. Niger J Clin Pract. 2017 Mar;20(3):355-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1119-3077.198388. PMid:28256492.

16 Maza JL, Elguezabal N, Prado C, Ellacuría J, Soler I, Pontón J. Candida albicans adherence to resin-composite restorative dental material: influence of whole human saliva. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002 Nov;94(5):589-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/moe.2002.126024. PMid:12424453.

17 Bürgers R, Schneider-Brachert W, Rosentritt M, Handel G, Hahnel S. Candida albicans adhesion to composite resin materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2009 Sep;13(3):293-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-008-0226-4. PMid:18810508.

18 Fernández CE, Tenuta LMA, Cury JA. Validation of a cariogenic biofilm model to evaluate the effect of fluoride on enamel and root dentine demineralization. PLoS One. 2016 Jan;11(1):e0146478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146478. PMid:26731743.

19 Sieuwerts S, de Bok FA, Mols E, de vos WM, Vlieg JE. A simple and fast method for determining colony forming units. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008 Oct;47(4):275-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02417.x. PMid:18778376.

20 Hao Y, Huang X, Zhou X, Li M, Ren B, Peng X, et al. Influence of dental prosthesis and restorative materials interface on oral biofilms. Int J Mol Sci. 2018 Oct;19(10):3157. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms19103157. PMid:30322190.

21 Motevasselian F, Zibafar E, Yassini E, Mirzaei M, Pourmirhoseni N. Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to microhybrid and nanohybrid resin composites and dental amalgam: an in vitro study. J Dent (Tehran). 2017 Nov;14(6):337-43. PMid:29942328.

22 Pereira D, Seneviratne CJ, Koga-Ito CY, Samaranayake LP. Is the oral fungal pathogen Candida albicans a cariogen? Oral Dis. 2018 May;24(4):518-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/odi.12691. PMid:28513096.

23 Ellepola K, Liu Y, Cao T, Koo H, Seneviratne CJ. Bacterial GtfB augments Candida albicans accumulation in cross-kingdom biofilms. J Dent Res. 2017 Sep;96(10):1129-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022034517714414. PMid:28605597.

24 Faustova MO, Ananieva MM, Basarab YO, Dobrobolska OV, Vovk IM, Loban’ GA. Bacterial factors of cariogenicity (literature review). Wiad Lek. 2018;71(2 pt 2):378-82. PMid:29786589.

25 Park J-W, An J-S, Lim WH, Lim B-S, Ahn S-J. Microbial changes in biofilms on composite resins with different surface roughness: an in vitro study with a multispecies biofilm model. J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Nov;122(5):493.e1-e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.009. PMid: 31648793.

26 Derchi G, Vano M, Barone A, Covani U, Diaspro A, Salerno M. Bacterial adhesion on direct and indirect dental restorative composite resins: an in vitro study on a natural biofilm. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 May;117(5):669-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.022. PMid:27881324.
 

5f99a4d50e8825cc28ea06e9 rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections