The bacterial adhesion on and the cytotoxicity of various dental cements used for implant-supported fixed restorations

Authors

  • Cornelia Winkler
  • Lina Schäfer
  • Oliver Felthaus Department of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Regensburg University Medical Center, Regensburg, Germany
  • Juri Allerdings Faculty of Physics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany
  • Sebastian Hahnel Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Regensburg University Medical Center, Regensburg, Germany
  • Michael Behr Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Regensburg University Medical Center, Regensburg, Germany
  • Ralf Bürgers Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Regensburg University Medical Center, Regensburg, Germany

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2013.828320

Keywords:

Streptococcus sanguinis, streptococcus epidermidis, dental implant, surface roughness, surface free energy, dental cement

Abstract

Objective. Bacterial adhesion on and cytotoxicity of eight luting agents used for implant-supported restorations were investigated. Materials and method. Surface roughness (Ra), surface free energy (SFE) values and three-dimensional images by atomic-force microscopy of circular specimens were determined. Bacterial suspensions of Streptococcus sanguinis and Streptococcus epidermidis were incubated at 37°C for 2 h. Adhering bacteria were examined with fluorescence dye CytoX-Violet, stained with 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) and visualized by fluorescence-microscopy. Cytotoxicity-testing was done with WST-1-tests (water soluble tetrazolium). No significant differences, neither with regard to Ra nor regarding SFE were determined. Results. Adherence of S. sanguinis was less on titanium, TempBondNE and TempBond. TempBond, TempBondNE, RelyX Unicem and Implantlink Semi Classic presented low amounts of S. epidermidis. WST-testing showed high cytotoxic potential of Harvard, Aqualox, TempBondNE and TempBond. No combination of low adherent bacteria with low cytotoxicity was found. Conclusion. From a biological in-vitro perspective, none of the cements may be recommended for implant-supported restorations.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2014-05-01