Türkün Murat, Türkün L Sebnem, Ergücü Zeynep, Ateş Mustafa
Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Ege University School of Dentistry, Izmir, Turkey.
Am J Dent. 2006 Jun;19(3):166-70.
To compare the antibacterial activity of an adhesive system containing an antibacterial monomer MDPB, Clearfil Protect Bond with three different cavity disinfectants, chlorhexidine gluconate-based Consepsis, benzalkonium chloride-based Tubulicid Red and 3% hydrogen peroxide.
Materials were tested using agar well technique and a tooth cavity model. The test materials were filled in the agar wells of plates inoculated with Streptococcus mutans. After 48 hours of incubation, the zones of inhibitions were measured in millimeters. For the tooth cavity model test, cylindrical cavities were prepared in the flat occlusal dentin of human extracted molars. The teeth were left in a broth culture of Streptococcus mutans at 37 degrees C for 72 hours allowing bacteria to invade. Teeth were then randomly assigned into five groups of five teeth (10 cavity preparations) each. In the first four groups test materials were applied into the cavities following the manufacturer's instructions and the cavities in the fifth group were left untreated for control. The teeth were kept in saline for 72 hours. Standard amounts of dentin chips were obtained from the cavity walls and the number of bacteria recovered was counted.
The results were analyzed by ANOVA, Dunnett C and Bonferroni tests. For the agar well technique, Clearfil Protect Bond primer exhibited greater inhibition zones than all three cavity disinfectants (P< 0.05). When tested by the cavity method, the application of Clearfil Protect Bond system resulted in significantly less bacterial recovery than all disinfectants (P< 0.05). For both microbiological methods, there were no significant differences between the antibacterial activities of Consepsis and Tubulicid Red (P> 0.05). They were superior to hydrogen peroxide in the cavity test method (P< 0.05).
比较含有抗菌单体10 - 甲基丙烯酰氧癸基二苯甲酮（MDPB）的粘结系统Clearfil Protect Bond与三种不同的窝洞消毒剂——葡萄糖酸氯己定基的Consepsis、苯扎氯铵基的Tubulicid Red和3%过氧化氢的抗菌活性。
使用琼脂扩散法和牙洞模型对材料进行测试。将测试材料填充到接种变形链球菌的平板琼脂孔中。孵育48小时后，以毫米为单位测量抑菌圈。对于牙洞模型测试，在拔除的人磨牙平坦的咬合牙本质上制备圆柱形洞。将牙齿置于变形链球菌肉汤培养物中，在37℃下培养72小时，使细菌侵入。然后将牙齿随机分为五组，每组五颗牙齿（10个洞制备）。在前四组中，按照制造商的说明将测试材料应用于洞中，第五组的洞不做处理作为对照。将牙齿置于盐水中72小时。从洞壁获取标准量的牙本质碎屑，并计算回收的细菌数量。
结果通过方差分析、Dunnett C检验和Bonferroni检验进行分析。对于琼脂扩散法，Clearfil Protect Bond底漆表现出比所有三种窝洞消毒剂更大的抑菌圈（P < 0.05）。当通过牙洞法测试时，应用Clearfil Protect Bond系统导致回收的细菌数量明显少于所有消毒剂（P < 0.05）。对于两种微生物学方法，Consepsis和Tubulicid Red的抗菌活性之间没有显著差异（P > 0.05）。在牙洞测试方法中，它们优于过氧化氢（P < 0.05）。
