Antimicrobial effect of bioceramic cements on multispecies microcosm biofilm: a confocal laser microscopy study
To assess the viability of multispecies microcosm biofilm after contact with NeoMTA Plus, Biodentine, and MTA Angelus.
Materials and methods
Fifty-four human dentin blocks (4 × 5 × 4 mm) were allocated to Hawley retainers, worn by six volunteers for 72 h. The blocks were then individually incubated in BHI broth for 21 days at 37 °C. At the end of experimental time for biofilm growth, the samples were randomly divided into four groups (n = 12): NeoMTA Plus, Biodentine, MTA Angelus, and negative control. The materials were placed in contact with the blocks. All samples were placed in cell-culture plate wells and incubated in BHI broth for 7 days at 37 °C. One sample from each volunteer (n = 6) was analyzed by SEM to describe the biofilm morphology. CLSM was performed to determine the percentage of viable biofilm biovolume. The data were statistically analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s multiple comparison test (α = 5%).
SEM showed biofilm formed by spherical and rod-shaped bacteria surrounded by an extracellular matrix. No material was able to kill all biofilm cells, and all groups had more than 50% of viable bacteria. NeoMTA Plus was significantly different from the negative control group (P < .05).
All tested materials were not effective against multispecies microcosm biofilm.
NeoMTA Plus, Biodentine, and MTA Angelus were not effective against multispecies microcosm biofilm. It is essential to understand that these bioceramic cements are indicated for infected clinical situations. Thus, complementary disinfection procedures should be conducted prior to filling with these materials.
KeywordsAntimicrobial agents Biofilm Confocal microscopy Mineral trioxide aggregate Tricalcium silicate
The authors would like to thank the Microscopy and Microanalyses Center (CMM) and the Laboratory of Oral Biochemistry and Microbiology (LABIM) of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS).
This study was conducted at the School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (Oral Biochemistry and Microbiology laboratory). The authors (Alexander Pompermayer Jardine, Ramiro Martins Quintana, and Ivana Maria Zaccara) received funding from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Ensino Superior (CAPES) Agency, Brazil.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The present study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil (CAAE 51315215.7.0000.5342).
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
- 4.Morse DR (1981) Endodontic microbiology in the 1970s. Int Endod J 14:69–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1981.tb01067.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Siqueira-Júnior JF (2001) Strategies to treat infected root canals. J Calif Dent Assoc 29:825–837Google Scholar
- 16.Ordinola-Zapata R, Bramante CM, Minotti PG, Cavenago BC, Garcia RB, Bernardineli N, Jaramillo DE, Duarte MAH (2013) Antimicrobial activity of triantibiotic paste, 2% chlorhexidine gel, and calcium hydroxide on an intraoral-infected dentin biofilm model. J Endod 36:115–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar