Comparison of the Antibacterial Activity of Different Self-etching Primers and Adhesives

JOURNAL TITLE: The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Author
1. Meral Ozalp
2. Yonca Korkmaz
3. Nuray Attar
ISSN
DOI
10.5005/jcdp-9-7-57
Volume
9
Issue
7
Publishing Year
2008
Pages
8
Author Affiliations
    1. Dr. Korkmaz is a Research Assistant in the Department of Restorative Dentistry of the School of Dentistry at Hacettepe University in Ankara, Turkey. Her primary subjects of interest are dental materials, dentin bonding, and root caries.
    1. Dr. Attar is an Associate Professor in the Department of Conservative Dentistry of the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of hacettepe in Ankara, Turkey. Her fields of special interest include caries prevention, application concepts of preventive dentistry, esthetic dentistry and dental materials. e-mail: nurayattar@hotmail.com
    1. Dr. Özalp is an Associate Professor in the Pharmaceutical Microbiology Department of the Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Hacettepe, Ankara, Turkey. Her fields of special interests include antimicrobial activity studies, bactericidal activities of disinfectants and antiseptics, and microbiological analyses of pharmaceutical products. e-mail: mozalp@hacettepe.edu.tr
  • Article keywords

    Abstract

    Aim

    The aim of this study was to evaluate the antibacterial effects of different one-step and two-step selfetching primer/adhesives on Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans), Lactobacillus casei (L. casei), and Lactobacillus acidophilus (L. acidophilus).

    Methods and Materials

    The antibacterial effects of Clearfil Protect Bond Primer and Bonding agent; AdheSE Primer and Bonding agent; Adper Prompt L-Pop; Futurabond NR; Clearfil Tri S Bond; and Cervitec (positive control, 1% chlorhexidine varnish) were tested against standard strains of S. mutans, L. Casei, and L. acidophilus using the disk diffusion method. Standard filter paper disks (n=5) impregnated with 20 microL of each material were prepared. After incubation at 37°C for 48 hours in a 5-10% CO2 atmosphere, the diameter of inhibition zones were measured in millimeters. Data were analyzed using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Duncan's Multiple Range Test was used for pairwise comparison.

    Results

    The size of inhibition zones produced by primer/adhesives varied among the brands. AdheSE Primer: S. mutans (20.6±1.51); L. casei (14.8±1.78); L. acidophilus (11.4±0.54). Adper Prompt L-Pop: S. mutans (19.6±1.51); L. casei (13.8±1.64); L. acidophilus (13.8±1.09). Cervitec: S. mutans (23±0.00); L. casei (27±0.70); L. acidophilus (22.4±0.54). Clearfil Protect Bond Primer: S. mutans (17±0.00); L. casei (17.6±0.54); L. acidophilus (22.4±0.54). Futurabond NR was found effective only against S. mutans (14.6±1.67). Of all the materials tested, AdheSE Bonding agent, Clearfil Protect Bond Bonding agent, and Clearfil Tri S Bond exhibited no inhibition zone (-) for all bacteria tested.

    Conclusion

    Among the adhesives tested Clearafil Protect Bond Primer based upon monomer methacryloyloxydodecylpyridiniium bromide (MDPB) was found to be the most potent material against L. acidophilus and L. casei. AdheSE Primer and Adper Prompt L-Pop are highly effective against S. mutans.

    Clinical Significance

    Compared with other adhesive systems, Clearfil Protect Bond Primer (containing MDPB) showed a high antibacterial effect against all microorganizms tested. Two-step, self-etching primer/ adhesive system Clearfil Protect Bond might be a suitable choice under minimally invasive restorations. The recently developed one-step, self-etching system Clearfil Tri S Bond showed no antibacterial effect against microorgazims tested.

    Citation

    Korkmaz Y, Ozalp M, Attar N. Comparison of the Antibacterial Activity of Different Self-etching Primers and Adhesives. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 November; (9)7:057-064.

    © 2019 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.   |   All Rights Reserved