Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Department of Clinical, Toxicological and Bromatological Analyses, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Braz J Microbiol. 2023 Dec;54(4):2781-2789. doi: 10.1007/s42770-023-01103-1. Epub 2023 Aug 23.
The present study evaluated the antibiofilm and antimicrobial effects of temporary restorative materials on root canals after an intra-oral challenge. Seventy roots were endodontically treated and divided into 5 groups: high-viscosity glass ionomer (HV-GIC), light-activated glass ionomer (RM-GIC), zinc-oxide cement without eugenol (ZO), zinc-oxide cement with eugenol (ZOE), and unsealed roots (negative control). For 28 days, 14 participants used intra-oral devices with five roots, and drops of sucrose were applied onto them. The amount of biofilm and the bacterial counts were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn, and by two-way ANOVA and Tukey (α = 0.05). HV-GIC and RM-GIC better inhibit biofilm, followed by ZO and ZOE. Unsealed roots had the largest biofilm accumulation (p = 0.002) and higher bacterial penetration than restored roots (p = 0.023). A low amount of Streptococcus was found in RM-GIC and ZOE-restored roots without difference from HV-GIC (p = 0.021). The low amount of Enterococcus (p = 0.003) was found in the ZOE-restored roots, without difference from GICs.
本研究评估了口腔内挑战后临时修复材料对根管的抗生物膜和抗菌效果。70 个根管经牙髓治疗后分为 5 组:高粘度玻璃离子体(HV-GIC)、光激活玻璃离子体(RM-GIC)、无丁香酚氧化锌水泥(ZO)、含丁香酚氧化锌水泥(ZOE)和未密封根管(阴性对照)。14 名参与者在 28 天内使用口腔内装置,每个装置上有 5 个根管,在根管上滴蔗糖。通过 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Dunn 以及双因素方差分析和 Tukey 检验(α=0.05)分析生物膜量和细菌计数。HV-GIC 和 RM-GIC 能更好地抑制生物膜,其次是 ZO 和 ZOE。未密封的根管生物膜积累量最大(p=0.002),且细菌穿透性高于修复后的根管(p=0.023)。RM-GIC 和 ZOE 修复的根管中发现少量链球菌,与 HV-GIC 无差异(p=0.021)。ZOE 修复的根管中发现低量肠球菌(p=0.003),与 GIC 无差异。