Advertisement

Effect of a novel glass ionomer cement containing fluoro-zinc-silicate fillers on biofilm formation and dentin ion incorporation

  • Taisuke Hasegawa
  • Shoji TakenakaEmail author
  • Tatsuya Ohsumi
  • Takako Ida
  • Hayato Ohshima
  • Yutaka Terao
  • Traithawit Naksagoon
  • Takeyasu Maeda
  • Yuichiro Noiri
Original Article
  • 64 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

This study is aimed at evaluating the effect of a new glass ionomer cement (GIC) containing fluoro-zinc-silicate fillers on biofilm formation and ion incorporation.

Materials and methods

Streptococcus mutans biofilms were developed on two GIC materials: Caredyne Restore (CD) and Fuji VII (FJ); and hydroxyapatite (HA) for 24 h at 37 °C using a flow cell system. The morphological structure and bacterial viability were analyzed using a confocal laser scanning microscopy. Bacterial adhesion during the initial 2 h was also assessed by viable cell counting. To study the ion incorporation, restored cavities prepared on the root surfaces of human incisors were subjected to the elemental mapping of the zinc and fluoride ions in the GIC-dentin interface using a wavelength-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy electron probe microanalyzer.

Results

Morphological observations revealed that biofilm formation in the CD group was remarkably inhibited compared with the HA and FJ groups, exhibiting sparse, thinner biofilm clusters. The microorganisms adhering to the CD group were significantly inhibited, revealing 2.9 ± 0.4 for CD, 4.9 ± 0.2 for FJ, and 5.4 ± 0.4 log colony-forming units (CFU) for HA. The CD zinc ion incorporation depth was 72.2 ± 8.0 μm. The fluoride penetration of CD was three times deeper than that of FJ; this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Enhanced by the incorporation of zinc and fluoride ions, the new GIC inhibited biofilm formation by interfering with bacterial adhesion.

Clinical relevance

A novel GIC comprised of fluoro-zinc-silicate fillers may improve clinical outcomes, such as root caries and minimally invasive dentistry.

Keywords

Fluoro-zinc-silicate fillers Tooth remineralization Oral biofilm Ion incorporation Bacterial adhesion Root surface caries 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported, in part, by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (grant no. 15H05021) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. This work was also partially supported by the Mitsubishi Foundation and GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This research is partially supported by GC Corporation (supplies expenses and publication fee).

Ethical approval

All of the experimental protocols involving the donation of an extracted tooth were approved by the Niigata University Ethics Committee.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Disclaimer

The sponsor had no control for the interpretation, writing, or publication of this work.

Supplementary material

784_2019_2991_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (587 kb)
Supplementary Fig S1 Flow cell system for biofilm formation. The flow cell system consisted of a medium reservoir, a peristaltic pump, and a carboy for waste. Two specimens were placed at either end so that the fluid flow did not interfere. (JPG 587 kb)
784_2019_2991_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (311 kb)
Supplementary Fig S2 Flow cell system for bacterial adhesion test. During the operation time, fresh media was constantly delivered to the bacterial suspension to maintain optimal density. (JPG 311 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Oliva A, Della Ragione F, Salerno A, Riccio V, Tartaro G, Cozzolino A, D’Amato S, Pontoni G, Zappia V (1996) Biocompatibility studies on glass ionomer cements by primary cultures of human osteoblasts. Biomaterials 17:1351–1356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Forsten L (1998) Fluoride release and uptake by glass-ionomers and related materials and its clinical effect. Biomaterials 19:503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW (2016) A review of glass-ionomer cements for clinical dentistry. J Funct Biomater 7:16.  https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb7030016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frencken JE, Leal SC, Navarro MF (2012) Twenty-five-year atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach: a comprehensive overview. Clin Oral Investig 16:1337–1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frencken JE (2017) Atraumatic restorative treatment and minimal intervention dentistry. Br Dent J 223:183–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Momoi Y, Hayashi M, Fujitani M, Fukushima M, Imazato S, Kubo S, Nikaido T, Shimizu A, Unemori M, Yamaki C (2012) Clinical guidelines for treating caries in adults following a minimal intervention policy—evidence and consensus based report. J Dent 40:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liao Y, Brandt BW, Li J, Crielaard W, Van Loveren C, Deng DM (2017) Fluoride resistance in Streptococcus mutans: a mini review. J Oral Microbiol 9:1344509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T (2007) Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials—fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater 23:343–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marquis RE (1995) Antimicrobial actions of fluoride for oral bacteria. Can J Microbiol 41:955–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hahnel S, Ionescu AC, Cazzaniga G, Ottobelli M, Brambilla E (2017) Biofilm formation and release of fluoride from dental restorative materials in relation to their surface properties. J Dent 60:14–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chau NP, Pandit S, Cai JN, Lee MH, Jeon JG (2015) Relationship between fluoride release rate and anti-cariogenic biofilm activity of glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 31:e100–e108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De Fúcio SB, Puppin-Rontani RM, de Carvalho FG, Mattos-Graner Rde O, Correr-Sobrinho L, Garcia-Godoy F (2009) Analyses of biofilms accumulated on dental restorative materials. Am J Dent 22:131–136Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sousa RP, Zanin LC, Lima JP, Vasconcelos SM, Melo MA, Beltrão HC, Rodrigues LK (2009) In situ effects of restorative materials on dental biofilm and enamel demineralization. J Dent 37:44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS, Khan AS, Zohaib S, Martí JM, Sauro S, Matinlinna JP, Rehman IU (2016) Modifications in glass ionomer cements: nano-sized fillers and bioactive nanoceramics. Int J Mol Sci 17:1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dashper SG, Catmull DV, Liu SW, Myroforidis H, Zalizniak I, Palamara JE, Huq NL, Reynolds EC (2016) Casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate reduces Streptococcus mutans biofilms development on glass ionomer cement and disrupts established biofilms. PLoS One 11:e0162322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ibrahim MA, Neo J, Esguerra RL, Fawzy AS (2015) Characterization of antibacterial and adhesion properties of chitosan-modified glass ionomer cement. J Biomater Appl 30:409–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yan H, Yang H, Li K, Yu J, Huang C (2017) Effects of chlorhexidine-encapsuled mesoporous silica nanoparticles on the anti-biofilm and mechanical properties of glass ionomer cement. Molecules 22:1225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hook ER, Owen OJ, Bellis CA, Holder JA, O’Sullivan DJ, Barbour ME (2014) Development of a novel antimicrobial-releasing glass ionomer cement functionalized with chlorhexidine hexametaphosphate nanoparticles. J Nanobiotechnol 12:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hu J, Du X, Huang C, Fu D, Ouyang X, Wang Y (2013) Antibacterial and physical properties of EGCG-containing glass ionomer cements. J Dent 41:927–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Topcuoglu N, Ozan F, Ozyurt M, Kulekci G (2012) In vitro antibacterial effects of glass-ionomer cement containing ethanolic extract of propolis on Streptococcus mutans. Eur J Dent 6:428–433Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elsaka SE, Hamouda IM, Swain MV (2011) Titanium dioxide nanoparticles addition to a conventional glass-ionomer restorative: influence on physical and antibacterial properties. J Dent 39:589–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Publication number: WO/2017/168836, WO/2017/168837Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    He G, Pearce EI, Sissons CH (2002) Inhibitory effect on ZnCl(2) on glycolysis in human oral microbes. Arch Oral Biol 47:117–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koo H, Sheng J, Nguyen PT, Marquis RE (2006) Co-operative inhibition by fluoride and zinc of glucosyl transferase production and polysacharide synthesis by mutans streptococci in suspension cultures and biofilms. FEMS Microbiol Lett 254:134–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hengtrakool C, Pearson GJ, Wilson M (2006) Interaction between GIC and S. sanguis biofilms: antibacterial properties and changes of surface hardness. J Dent 34:588–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Takenaka S, Oda M, Domon H, Ohsumi T, Suzuki Y, Ohshima H, Yamamoto H, Terao Y, Noiri Y (2016) Vizantin inhibits bacterial adhesion without affecting bacterial growth and causes Streptococcus mutans biofilm to detach by altering its internal architecture. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 480:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wakamatsu R, Takenaka S, Ohsumi T, Terao Y, Ohshima H, Okiji T (2014) Penetration kinetics of four mouthrinses into Streptococcus mutans biofilms analyzed by direct time-lapse visualization. Clin Oral Investig 18:625–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ohsumi T, Takenaka S, Wakamatsu R, Sakaue Y, Narisawa N, Senpuku H, Ohshima H, Terao Y, Okiji T (2015) Residual structure of Streptococcus mutans biofilm following complete disinfection favors secondary bacterial adhesion and biofilm re-development. PLoS One 10:e0116647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ngo HC, Mount G, Mclntyre J, Do L (2011) An in vitro model for the study of chemical exchange between glass ionomer restorations and partially demineralized dentin using a minimally invasive restorative technique. J Dent 39(Suppl 2):S20–S26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hotta M, Li Y, Sekine I (2001) Mineralization in bovine dentin adjacent to glass-ionomer restorations. J Dent 29:211–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Han L, Okiji T (2011) Evaluation of the ions release / incorporation of the prototype S-PRG filler-containing endodontic sealer. Dent Mater J 30:898–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sakaue Y, Takenaka S, Ohsumi T, Domon H, Terao Y, Noiri Y (2018) The effect of chlorhexidine on dental calculus formation: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 18:52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Padovani GC, Fúcio SB, Ambrosano GM, Correr-Sobrinho L, Puppin-Rontani RM (2015) In situ bacterial accumulation on dental restorative materials. CLSM/COMSTAT analysis. Am J Dent 28:3–8Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Carey CM, Spencer M, Gove RJ, Eichmiller FC (2003) Fluoride release from a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in a continuous-flow system. Effect of pH. J Dent Res 82:829–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ngo HC, Mount G, Mc Intyre J, Tuisuva J, Von Doussa RJ (2006) Chemical exchange between glass-ionomer restorations and residual carious dentine in permanent molars: an in vivo study. J Dent 34:608–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zoergiebel J, llie L (2013) Evaluation of a conventional glass ionomer cement with new zinc formulation: effect of coating, aging and storage agents. Clin Oral Investig 17:619–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Molina GF, Cabral RJ, Mazzola I, Lascano LB, Frencken JE (2013) Mechanical performance of encapsulated restorative glass-ionomer cements for use with atraumatic restorative treatment (ART). J Appl Oral Sci 21:243–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lynch RJ, Churchley D, Butler A, Keams S, Thomas GV, Badrock TC, Cooper L, Higham SM (2011) Effects of zinc and fluoride on the remineralization of artificial carious lesions under simulated plaque fluid conditions. Caries Res 45:313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lippert F (2012) Dose-response effects of zinc and fluoride on caries lesion remineralization. Caries Res 46:62–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gu H, Fan D, Gao J, Zou W, Peng Z, Zhao Z, Ling J, LeGeros RZ (2012) Effect of ZnCl2 on plaque growth and biofilm vitality. Arch Oral Biol 57:369–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taisuke Hasegawa
    • 1
  • Shoji Takenaka
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tatsuya Ohsumi
    • 1
  • Takako Ida
    • 2
  • Hayato Ohshima
    • 3
  • Yutaka Terao
    • 4
  • Traithawit Naksagoon
    • 1
    • 5
  • Takeyasu Maeda
    • 5
  • Yuichiro Noiri
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Cariology, Operative Dentistry and EndodonticsNiigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental SciencesNiigataJapan
  2. 2.Division of Bio-ProsthodonticsNiigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental SciencesNiigataJapan
  3. 3.Division of Anatomy and Cell Biology of Hard TissueNiigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental SciencesNiigataJapan
  4. 4.Division of Microbiology and Infectious DiseasesNiigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental SciencesNiigataJapan
  5. 5.Research Centre for Advanced Oral ScienceNiigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental SciencesNiigataJapan

Personalised recommendations