The Microfloral Analysis of Secondary Caries Biofilm around Class I and Class II Composite and Amalgam Fillings

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Secondary caries is responsible for 60 percent of all replacement restorations in the typical dental practice. The diversity of the bacterial sources and the different types of filling materials could play a role in secondary caries. The aim of this study was to determine and compare the microbial spectrum of secondary caries biofilms around amalgam and composite resin restorations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Clinical samples were collected from freshly extracted teeth diagnosed with clinical secondary caries. Samples were categorized into four groups according to the types of restoration materials and the classification of the cavity. Biofilms were harvested from the tooth-restoration interface using a dental explorer and after dilution were incubated on special agars. The bacteria were identified using the biochemical appraisal system. Statistical calculations were carried out using SPSS11.5 software to analyze the prevalence of the bacteria involved in secondary caries.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Samples from a total of four groups were collected: two groups were collected from amalgam restorations, each had 21 samples from both Class I and Class II caries; and the other two groups were from composite resin restorations, each had 13 samples from both class I and class II caries. Our results showed: (1) Anaerobic species were dominant in both restoration materials. (2) In terms of the types of individual bacteria, no significant differences were found among the four groups according to the geometric mean of the detected bacteria (P > 0.05). However, there were significant differences among the detected bacteria within each group (P < 0.05). The composition of each bacterium had no statistical difference among the four groups (P > 0.05), but showed significant differences among the detected bacteria in each group (P < 0.05). (3) Among the four groups, there were no significant differences for the detection rate of each bacterium (P > 0.05), however, the detection rate of each bacterium within each group was statistically different among the detected bacteria (P < 0.05).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The proportion of obligatory anaerobic species was much greater than the facultative anaerobic species in the biofilm of secondary caries. Statistically, the materials of restoration and the location of secondary caries did not show any significant effects on the composition of the microflora.</p

Composição química e aspecto superficial do slot de braquetes metálicos Elemental composition and superficial aspect of metallic brackets slot

OBJETIVO: avaliar a composição química e rugosidade do fundo do slot de 90 braquetes metálicos divididos em 9 grupos: grupo 1- aço inoxidável (Equilibrium 2 - Dentaurum); grupo 2 - titânio (Equilibrium ti - Dentaurum); grupo 3- cromo-cobalto (Topic- Dentaurum); grupo 4 - aço inoxidável (Standard -TP Orthodontics); grupo 5 - aço inoxidável (Serie light - American Orthodontics); grupo 6 - aço inoxidável (Kirium Line - Abzil Lancer); grupo 7 - aço inoxidável livre de níquel (Monobloc - Morelli); grupo 8 - aço inoxidável (Convencional- Morelli) e grupo 9 - aço inoxidável livre de níquel (Monobloc Golden - Morelli). METODOLOGIA: a composição química foi analisada pela Espectroscopia de Energia Dispersiva. A avaliação qualitativa do fundo do slot foi realizada através do MEV classificada de 0 a 8, correspondente às características da superfície. RESULTADOS: composição química - grupo 1 = titânio puro; grupo 9 = recoberto por nitreto de titânio em 99,48%; grupo 3 = cromo-cobalto; grupo 8 = aço inoxidável livre de níquel. Os demais grupos são compostos de aço inoxidável. Avaliação da superfície - grupo 1 = valor 2 (superfície mais polida); grupos 2, 5 e 7 = valor 3 (aspecto de polimento); grupos 3, 8 e 9 = valor 6 (menor polimento); grupo 4 = valor 6,5 (maior rugosidade) e o grupo 6 = valor 5 (características intermediárias de polimento). CONCLUSÕES: os braquetes metálicos são compostos de diferentes ligas e estão disponíveis com baixo conteúdo ou ausência de níquel. Os braquetes de titânio apresentaram polimento semelhante aos de aço inoxidável, porém os recobertos por nitreto de titânio e os de cromo-cobalto mostraram superfície mais irregular ou menos polida.<br>AIM: To evaluate the elemental composition and the slot roughness of 90 metallic brackets divided into 9 groups: group 1 - stainless steel (Equilibrium 2 - Dentaurum); group 2 - titanium (Equilibrium ti - Dentaurum); group 3 - chromium-cobalt (Topic - Dentaurum); group 4 - stainless steel (Standard - TP Orthodontics); group 5 - stainless steel (Serie light - American Orthodontics); group 6 - stainless steel (Kirium Line - Abzil Lancer); group 7 - stainless steel (Monobloc - Morelli); group 8 - stainless steel (Standard - Morelli) and group 9 - stainless steel (Monobloc Golden - Morelli). METHODS: Elemental composition was evaluated using the Spectroscopy of Dispersive Energy. The qualitative slot surface evaluation was assessed using a 500X scanning electron microscope. The microphotography was classified according to surface characteristics in 0-8 values. RESULTS: Elemental composition - group 1 = 100% titanium alloy; group 9 = 99,48% of titanium nitride coated. Group 3 = cobalt-chromium alloy; Group 8 = nickel free stainless steel alloy; other groups stainless steel alloy. Surface evaluation - Group 1 = value 2 (smoothest surface); Groups 2, 5 and 7 =value 3 (smooth surface); Groups 3, 8 and 9 showed value 6 (roughness surface); Group 4 = value 6,5 (the most roughness and irregular surface); and Group 6 has intermediate characteristics among the groups, with value 5. CONCLUSIONS: Metallic brackets were composed of different alloys and they were available with a small percentage or no nickel. The surface roughness was similar for both titanium and stainless steel, however the titanium nitride coated and cobalt-chromium showed an irregular and rough surface

Avaliação do Índice de Remanescente Adesivo utilizando braquetes com e sem tratamento na base e a interação com três sistemas de colagem Evaluation of Adhesive Remnant Index using conventional mesh bases and sandblasted orthodontic bracket bases and three bonding systems

OBJETIVO: avaliar o Índice de Remanescente Adesivo (IRA) em dentes bovinos após a descolagem de braquetes com e sem tratamento na base. METODOLOGIA: foram utilizados três sistemas de colagem ortodôntica para os dois padrões de base. Os dentes bovinos foram divididos em seis grupos de 40, de acordo com a base do braquete e o sistema de colagem. Vinte e quatro horas após a colagem foram realizados os testes de compressão em uma máquina de ensaios. A avaliação do IRA foi realizada em um estereomicroscópio por três examinadores calibrados. Foi utilizado o teste não paramétrico de Kruskal-Wallis, seguido do método de Dunn, para fazer as comparações múltiplas entre todos os grupos. RESULTADOS E CONCLUSÕES: observou-se que o tratamento das bases dos braquetes com óxido de alumínio não foi determinante para o aumento da adesividade entre o braquete e o adesivo. O grupo em que se utilizou braquetes com tratamento na base e adesivo TXT (3M-Unitek) + Transbond Plus SEP (3M-Unitek) apresentou a maior parte das fraturas na interface dente-adesivo (escore 4).<br>AIM: To assess the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) in bovine teeth after debonding mesh bases and sandblasted orthodontic bracket bases. METHODS: Were used three bonding systems for the two standards of base. The bovine teeth were divided into 6 groups of 40, according to the bracket base and to the bonding system. Twenty four hours after bonding they had been carried through shear bond strength tests in a universal testing machine. The assessment of ARI was performed in a stereomicroscopy by three calibrated examiners. It was used the non-parametric Kruskall-Wallis test, followed by Dunn's method, to do the multiple comparisons among all groups. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: It was observed that the aluminum oxide sandblasting bracket bases was not determinative to the increase of the adhesiveness between bracket and adhesive. The group where it was used sandblasted orthodontic bracket bases and bonding system TXT (3M-Unitek) + Transbond Plus SEP (3M-Unitek) presented the majority of the failures at the teeth-adhesive interface (score 4)