Scholarlink

Objective <p>This study aimed to evaluate the impact of bioactive restorative materials on biofilm formation and cariogenic processes using an in vitro dynamic cariogenic biofilm model simulated by a Multifunctional Oral Cavity Simulator. The experimental design included composite resins and adhesive systems containing S-PRG particles (Beautifil and FL-Bond II – Shofu), compared against a conventional composite (Filtek Z350XT – 3&#xa0;M ESPE) and a conventional adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond – Kuraray).</p> Methods <p>Samples were exposed to a controlled cariogenic environment and analyzed for colony-forming unit (CFU) counting, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), microhardness, and chemical modifications by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test was performed (α = 0.05).</p> Results <p>CFU counting and SEM analysis revealed no significant differences in biofilm volume or microbial counts among groups (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.05), indicating no reduction with bioactive materials. FTIR analysis showed a marked reduction in phosphate and carbonate absorption peaks compared to sound enamel, indicating a similar demineralization pattern regardless of material. Microhardness analysis revealed no significant differences among materials (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.05).</p> Conclusion <p>Our findings did not reveal superior protection of bioactive materials containing S-PRG particles against cariogenic challenges. In this context, more robust clinical evidence is still needed to confirm the effectiveness of bioactive materials in enhancing restoration longevity and caries control.</p> Clinical significance <p>Under dynamic cariogenic conditions, S-PRG-based materials performed similarly to conventional restoratives materials. These findings indicate that the purported bioactivity may not result in measurable clinical benefits.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Influence of S-PRG-based restorative and adhesive systems on biofilm formation and enamel demineralization in a simulated oral environment.

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月31日

查看全文
  • Luísa Figueredo de Carvalho,
  • Maurício Malheiros Badaró,
  • Sheila Cristina Stolf,
  • Tamires Timm Maske,
  • Glenda Ávila Marques,
  • Laura Mello da Cunha,
  • Júlia Silveira Longaray,
  • Carla Lucía David Peña,
  • Rafael Guerra Lund,
  • Juliana Silva Ribeiro de Andrade

摘要

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of bioactive restorative materials on biofilm formation and cariogenic processes using an in vitro dynamic cariogenic biofilm model simulated by a Multifunctional Oral Cavity Simulator. The experimental design included composite resins and adhesive systems containing S-PRG particles (Beautifil and FL-Bond II – Shofu), compared against a conventional composite (Filtek Z350XT – 3 M ESPE) and a conventional adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond – Kuraray).

Methods

Samples were exposed to a controlled cariogenic environment and analyzed for colony-forming unit (CFU) counting, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), microhardness, and chemical modifications by Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test was performed (α = 0.05).

Results

CFU counting and SEM analysis revealed no significant differences in biofilm volume or microbial counts among groups (P > 0.05), indicating no reduction with bioactive materials. FTIR analysis showed a marked reduction in phosphate and carbonate absorption peaks compared to sound enamel, indicating a similar demineralization pattern regardless of material. Microhardness analysis revealed no significant differences among materials (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Our findings did not reveal superior protection of bioactive materials containing S-PRG particles against cariogenic challenges. In this context, more robust clinical evidence is still needed to confirm the effectiveness of bioactive materials in enhancing restoration longevity and caries control.

Clinical significance

Under dynamic cariogenic conditions, S-PRG-based materials performed similarly to conventional restoratives materials. These findings indicate that the purported bioactivity may not result in measurable clinical benefits.