Epigallocatechin gallate-immobilized antimicrobial resin with rechargeable fluorinated synergistic composite for enhanced caries control

OBJECTIVES

Given the global prevalence of dental caries, impacting 2.5 billion individuals, the development of sophisticated prevention filling materials is crucial. Streptococcus mutans, the principal caries-causing strain, produces acids that demineralize teeth and initiate dental caries. To address this issue, we aimed to develop a synergistic resin-based composite for enhancing caries control.

METHODS

The synergistic resin composite incorporates fluorinated kaolinite and silanized Al2O3 nanoparticle fillers into an epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) immobilized urethane-modified epoxy acrylate (U-EA) resin matrix, referred to the as-prepared resin composite. The EGCG-modified TPGDA/U-EA network was synthesized by preparing methacrylate-functionalized isocyanate (HI), reacting it with EGCG to form HI-EGCG, and then incorporating HI-EGCG into the TPGDA/U-EA matrix. The lamellar space within the kaolinite layer was expanded through the intercalation of acrylamide into kaolinite, enhancing its capability to adsorb and release fluoride ions (F-). The layered structure of acrylamide/ kaolinite in the U-EA resin composite acts as a F- reservoir.

RESULTS

The physico-mechanical properties of the as-prepared resin composites are comparable to those of commercial products, exhibiting lower polymerization shrinkage, substantial F- release and recharge and favorable diametral tensile strength. The immobilized EGCG in the composite exhibits potent antimicrobial properties, effectively reducing the biofilm biomass. Furthermore, the synergistic effect of EGCG and fluorinated kaolinite efficiently counteracts acid-induced hydroxyapatite dissolution, thereby suppressing demineralization and promoting enamel remineralization.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our innovative EGCG and fluoride synergistic composite provides enhanced antimicrobial properties, durable anti-demineralization, and tooth remineralization effects, positioning it as a promising solution for effective caries control and long-term dental maintenance.

Adhesion and Surface Roughness of Apatite-Containing Carbomer and Improved Ionically Bioactive Resin Compared to Glass Ionomers

The surface roughness of different glass-ionomer-based materials and their shear bond strength with a resin composite with and without thermal cycling were evaluated. Ketac Molar (KM, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA), Glass Carbomer (GC, GCP Dental, Leiden, The Netherlands), Bioactive (BA, PULPDENT, Corporation, Watertown, MA, USA) and Fuji II LC (FJ, GC, Tokyo, Japan) were used to prepare the specimens and they were kept in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h. The surface roughness of the specimens was measured with a profilometer (n = 6). A universal adhesive resin was applied on glass-ionomer materials and cylindrical universal composites were applied and polymerized, respectively (n = 16). The specimens were divided into two subgroups. The first subgroup was subjected to thermal cycling. Shear bond strength was investigated for both subgroups (n = 8). Stereomicroscopy and SEM examinations were performed. The roughest surface was obtained in the GC group (p < 0.05). The shear bond strength of the specimens without thermal cycling was higher than that of those with thermal cycling (p < 0.05). The lowest shear bond was measured in the GC group (p < 0.05). Although FJ, KM and BA have been observed to be suitable materials for clinical use, BA, in particular, is evidenced to become the best option among the materials we tested. GC cement's long-term performance needs to be improved.

Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

This systematic review was aimed to evaluate occurrence of secondary caries and marginal adaptation in ion-releasing materials versus resin composite. Electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Open Grey databases with no date or language restrictions until May 21st, 2021, was conducted. Randomized clinical trials that compared ion-releasing restorations versus resin composite were included. For quantitative analysis, a random-effects meta-analysis with risk difference as an effect measure and a 95% confidence interval was used. Quality of evidence was assessed using The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochran Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. The inclusion criteria were met by 22 studies, and 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three follow-up periods (1 year, 18 months-2 years, and 3 years) were evaluated. The overall quality of evidence for secondary caries and marginal adaptation outcomes was low. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in both outcomes between ion-releasing materials and resin composite. The occurrence of secondary caries was not dependent on the nature of the restorative material. It is more likely a complex process that involves the same risk factors as primary carious lesions.

Interaction between the Oral Microbiome and Dental Composite Biomaterials: Where We Are and Where We Should Go

Dental composites are routinely placed as part of tooth restoration procedures. The integrity of the restoration is constantly challenged by the metabolic activities of the oral microbiome. This activity directly contributes to a less-than-desirable half-life for the dental composite formulations currently in use. Therefore, many new antimicrobial dental composites are being developed to counteract the microbial challenge. To ensure that these materials will resist microbiome-derived degradation, the model systems used for testing antimicrobial activities should be relevant to the in vivo environment. Here, we summarize the key steps in oral microbial colonization that should be considered in clinically relevant model systems. Oral microbial colonization is a clearly defined developmental process that starts with the formation of the acquired salivary pellicle on the tooth surface, a conditioned film that provides the critical attachment sites for the initial colonizers. Further development includes the integration of additional species and the formation of a diverse, polymicrobial mature biofilm. Biofilm development is discussed in the context of dental composites, and recent research is highlighted regarding the effect of antimicrobial composites on the composition of the oral microbiome. Future challenges are addressed, including the potential of antimicrobial resistance development and how this could be counteracted by detailed studies of microbiome composition and gene expression on dental composites. Ultimately, progress in this area will require interdisciplinary approaches to effectively mitigate the inevitable challenges that arise as new experimental bioactive composites are evaluated for potential clinical efficacy. Success in this area could have the added benefit of inspiring other fields in medically relevant materials research, since microbial colonization of medical implants and devices is a ubiquitous problem in the field.

Effect of Polyols and Selected Dental Materials on the Ability to Create a Cariogenic Biofilm-On Children Caries-Associated Streptococcus Mutans Isolates

Secondary caries is a disease associated with the formation of biofilm on the border of the tooth and dental filling. Its development is strongly influenced by the dietary sweet foods and the type of dental material. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of sweeteners on the ability of clinical Streptococcus mutans strains to form biofilm on dental materials. Strains were isolated from plaque samples from 40 pediatric patients from the 3-6 ICADS II group. The ability to form biofilm was tested on composite and glass ionomer dental materials used for milk teeth filling in the presence of sucrose, xylitol, sorbitol, and erythritol. The bacterial film mass after 12, 24, 48, and 72 h and the number of bacterial colonies significantly decreased (p < 0.01) compared to the initial value for 5% erythritol and sorbitol on examined materials. A greater inhibitory effect was noted for glass ionomers compared to composites. Sucrose and xylitol supported biofilm formation, while erythritol had the best inhibitory effect. The use of fluoride-releasing glass ionomers exerted an effect synergistic to erythritol, i.e., inhibited plaque formation and the amount of cariogenic S. mutans. Selection of proper type of dental material together with replacing sucrose with polyols can significantly decrease risk of secondary caries development. Erithritol in combination with glass ionomer seems to be the most effective in secondary caries prevention.

Secondary caries: what is it, and how it can be controlled, detected, and managed?

OBJECTIVES

To assess how to control, detect, and treat secondary caries. This review serves to inform a joint ORCA/EFCD consensus process.

METHODS

Systematic and non-systematic reviews were performed or consulted and narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

Secondary (or recurrent) caries is defined as a lesion associated with restorations or sealants. While the restorative material itself has some influence on secondary caries, further factors like the presence and size of restoration gaps, patients' caries risk, and the placing dentist's experience seem more relevant. Current detection methods for secondary caries are only sparsely validated and likely prone for the risk of over-detection. In many patients, it might be prudent to prioritize specific detection methods to avoid invasive overtreatment. Detected secondary caries can be managed either by repair of the defective part of the restoration or its complete replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

There is sparse data towards the nature of secondary caries and how to control, detect, and treat it.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Despite often claimed to be a major complication of restorations, there is surprisingly little data on secondary caries. Longer-term studies may be needed to identify differences in secondary caries risk between materials and to identify characteristic features of progressive lesions (i.e., those in need of treatment).