Morrier J J, Rocca J P, Barsotti O
Département de Pédodontie, Faculté d'Odontologie, Lyon.
Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol. 1995 Sep-Oct;38(3-4):87-93.
The antibacterial activity of seven commercially available dental cements (Eugespad, Dentical, Dycal, Expaliner, PR. Scell, PR. Base Cement, PR. Lining Cement) against 1) bacterial species implicated in carious lesions or in dental plaque (Actinomyces israelii ATCC 10048, Actinomyces viscosus ATCC 19246, Streptococcus mutans ATCC 25175, Streptococcus sanguis ATCC 10557) and 2) bacterial samples of stimulated saliva was studied, in vitro, using a modification of the method of McComb and Ericson (1987). Dycal and Expaliner did not affect bacteria whereas the other dental cements displayed some antibacterial properties. Eugespad was the most active followed by PR. Base Cement + PR. Scell + Dentical and by PR. Lining Cement. Associated with mechanical and biocompatibility properties, these differences could be taken into account when choosing a dental cement for clinical use.
研究了七种市售牙科水门汀（Eugespad、Dentical、Dycal、Expaliner、PR. Scell、PR. Base Cement、PR. Lining Cement）对以下两类细菌的抗菌活性：1）与龋损或牙菌斑相关的细菌种类（以色列放线菌ATCC 10048、粘性放线菌ATCC 19246、变形链球菌ATCC 25175、血链球菌ATCC 10557），以及2）刺激唾液的细菌样本。体外实验采用了对McComb和Ericson（1987年）方法的改良。Dycal和Expaliner对细菌无影响，而其他牙科水门汀表现出一定的抗菌特性。Eugespad活性最强，其次是PR. Base Cement + PR. Scell + Dentical以及PR. Lining Cement。鉴于其机械性能和生物相容性，在临床选择牙科水门汀时可考虑这些差异。
