Evaluation of physical-mechanical properties, antibacterial effect, and cytotoxicity of temporary restorative materials

Authors

  • Sonia Luque Peralta Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Faculdade de Odontologia, Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Odontologia, Pelotas, RS http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5857-9321
  • Sávio Bisinoto de Leles Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel) - Faculdade de Odontologia, Laboratório de Microbiologia Oral, Pelotas, RS
  • André Lindemann Dutra Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel) - Faculdade de Odontologia, Laboratório de Microbiologia Oral, Pelotas, RS
  • Victoria Burmann da Silva Guimarães Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Faculdade de Odontologia, Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Odontologia, Pelotas, RS
  • Evandro Piva Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Faculdade de Odontologia, Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Odontologia, Pelotas, RS http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5970-5158
  • Rafael Guerra Lund Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Faculdade de Odontologia, Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Odontologia, Pelotas, RS http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1006-3809

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2017-0562%20

Keywords:

Temporary dental restoration, Dental leakage, Solubility, Microbiology

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare selective physical-mechanical properties, antibacterial effects and cytotoxicity of seven temporary restorative materials (TRM): five resin-based materials [Bioplic (B), Fill Magic Tempo (FM), Fermit inlay (F), Luxatemp LC (L) and Revotek LC (R)], and zinc oxide-eugenol cement (IRM) and glass ionomer cement (GIC) as the controls. Material and methods: The physical-mechanical properties were evaluated by determining microleakage (ML), ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and Shore D hardness (SDH). In addition, the polymerization rate (Pr-1), depth of cure (DC), water sorption and solubility (WS/SL) were evaluated. The antimicrobial effects of the materials were assessed by biofilm accumulation of Streptococcus mutans (BT) and the direct contact test (DCT) by exposure to Enterococcus faecalis for 1 and 24 h, and cytotoxicity by MTT assay. The data were analyzed by ANOVA or Kruskall-Wallis tests, and a complementary post-hoc method (p<0.05). Results: Group B, followed by FM and GIC had significantly lower percentages of microleakage in comparison with the other groups; Groups FM and L showed the highest WS, while Groups R and FM showed the significantly lowest SL values (p<0.05). Group R showed the statistically highest UTS mean and the lowest DC mean among all groups. Group F showed the lowest S. mutans biofilm accumulation (p=0.023). Only the Group L showed continued effect against E. faecalis after 1 h and 24 h in DCT. The L showed statistically lower viability cell when compared to the other groups. Conclusions: These findings suggest the antibacterial effect of the temporary materials Fill Magic and Bioplic against S. mutans, while Luxatemp showed in vitro inhibition of S. mutans biofilm accumulation and E. faecalis growth. Regarding the cell viability test, Luxatemp was the most cytotoxic and Fill Magic was shown to be the least cytotoxic.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2022-09-26

Issue

Section

Original Articles

How to Cite

Evaluation of physical-mechanical properties, antibacterial effect, and cytotoxicity of temporary restorative materials. (2022). Journal of Applied Oral Science, 26, e20170562. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2017-0562