MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on two bioactive cements: an in-vitro study
Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on two bioactive cements: an in-vitro study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on two bioactive cements: an in-vitro study
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on two bioactive cements: an in-vitro study
Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on two bioactive cements: an in-vitro study

Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on two bioactive cements: an in-vitro study
Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on two bioactive cements: an in-vitro study
Journal Article

Comparative evaluation of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on two bioactive cements: an in-vitro study

2024
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Background Dental restorative materials are recognized as artificial niches that facilitate the adherence and accumulation of oral microorganisms. To mitigate oral diseases and extend the lifespan of restorations, it is advantageous to use dental materials that exhibit low susceptibility to bacterial adhesion. Objective To evaluate and compare bacterial adhesion on two bioactive restorative materials, a glass hybrid restorative, and an alkasite with a nanohybrid resin composite as a positive control. The secondary objectives were to compare the surface roughness (SR) of the materials and determine the correlation between the bacterial adhesion and the SR. Materials and methods The samples consisted of 33 polished discs of each material: Group A: Tetric ® N-Ceram (nanohybrid resin composite), Group B: Equia Forte™ HT Fil (glass hybrid restorative) and Group C: Cention N ® (alkasite). Streptococcus mutans cultures were inoculated and after 24-hours of incubation, bacterial adhesion was measured by measuring optical density (OD) and number of colony forming units (CFUs). After 96-hours incubation, the bacterial cell count was determined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). SR was assessed using surface profilometer. Results Alkasite had significantly lower OD and CFUs ( p  < 0.001 and p  = 0.015 respectively). According to the SEM analysis, the glass hybrid restorative had lower mean bacterial cell count with no significant difference between the groups. The nanohybrid composite had the smoothest surface that was significantly lower than the alkasite and glass hybrid restorative ( p  = 0.002). None of the groups demonstrated a correlation between bacterial adhesion and SR. Conclusion Alkasite impedes bacterial adhesion better than the glass hybrid restorative and nanohybrid composite, while smoother surfaces are achieved with the nanohybrid composite.