Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

In vitro antibacterial effect of fifth generation dentin bonding agent incorporated with nisin on Streptococcus mutans

In vitro antibacterial effect of fifth generation dentin bonding agent incorporated with nisin on... researchmaha@gmail.com; mahalaxr@srmist.edu.in Introduction: Bacterial adherence to restorative materials such as composite resin is SRM Dental College, one of the aetiology of secondary caries. This study evaluated the antibacterial effi- SRM Institute of Science & Technology, Ramapuram, cacy of fifth generation bonding agent (BA) modified with nisin, against Streptococcus Chennai 600089, India mutans based on its growth, adherence and membrane integrity. Full list of author information is available at the end of the Methods: Adhesive eluents of the experimental bonding agents were obtained using article 250 μl Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) broth and the groups were control (BA with 0% Nisin), bonding agent with 1 wt% (NBA 1) and 5 wt% nisin (NBA 5). To this, 10 μl S. mutans cul- ture was added and incubated at 37 °C. Bacterial growth was estimated by changes in optical density using spectrophotometer every 20 min for 2 h. The results were statisti- cally analysed using one way ANOVA followed by Tukey Post Hoc test. For adherence and membrane integrity test, 10 μl of BHI supplemented with 1% sucrose and 50 μl of bacterial suspension were inoculated onto the cured specimens, and incubated for 4 h. After rinsing, 1 ml of Live/Dead BacLight bacterial viability stain was added and incu- bated in the dark for 15 min and observed under confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) for intact (green/live) and damaged (red/dead) bacterial membranes. Results: Mean optical density was significantly higher in control group at all time intervals with maximum value at 2 h (0.83 ± 0.008), while there was a concentration dependant reduction in bacterial growth with the NBA groups (0.50 ± 0.007). Corre- spondingly, the NBA groups showed higher amount of dead than live bacteria, while live bacteria were predominant in the control group. Significance: Addition of an antibacterial agent nisin in dentin bonding agent may render the resin dentin interface more resistant to bacterial penetration, and adher- ence of cariogenic bacteria like S. mutans. Keywords: Antibacterial peptide, Dentin bonding agent, Dental marginal adaptation, Nisin, Streptococcus mutans Introduction The demand for aesthetic dentistry has resulted in majority of direct anterior and pos - terior restorations being done with the more favoured material of choice, composite resin. The causes of failure of composite resin restorations is multi-factorial. A system - atic review on longevity of posterior restorations done by Demarco et  al. shows that © The Author(s) 2021. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. Keerthipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 2 of 9 these factors are related to the type and position of the tooth, demographical, socio-eco- nomical and behavioural elements [1]. The role of material characteristics is considered minimal and the primary reasons for failure of these restorations are secondary caries, fracture of the restoration or marginal defects [2]. In the recent era of minimal invasive dentistry (MID), the choice of restorative mate- rials is based on their bioactive functions that provide therapeutic effects [3]. With the present concept of minimal invasion, it is expected that more of the saved, affected hard tissue will probably harbour more residual bacteria [4]. Thus the ability of the restora - tive material to eliminate these bacteria would be advantageous to prevent microleakage and secondary caries. Hence, one of the bioactive functions proposed for these materi- als is their anti-bacterial activity that may play a major role in restorative treatment of a carious tooth, more so in high caries risk individuals. Though the effect of restorative materials on secondary caries seem limited, the degradation of the hybrid layer may lead to gap formation in the tooth-restorative interface making the tooth more susceptible to secondary caries [5]. Poor marginal adaptation and the resulting secondary caries is the most common rea- son for failure of adhesive resin based restorations [6, 7]. Advanced analytical techniques to examine the adhesive resin-dentin interfacial region have revealed a number of poten- tially deleterious phenomena that could interfere with successful dentin bonding [8–10]. Lack of marginal adaptation that eventually leads to microleakage is caused by poly- merisation shrinkage of the composite resin that results in gap formation and bacterial invasion into the interface leading to post- operative pain, marginal discolouration and secondary caries [11]. Though some advocated methods such as incremental technique, flowable resin as a liner, or use of bulk-fill composite resins do lower polymerization shrinkage and resultant stress, it is not clinically possible to eliminate shrinkage com- pletely [12]. Bioactivity toward the pulp-dentin complex and prevention of secondary caries were rated as the keys to success and future of restorative dentistry and restorative materials based on the Delphi survey report by Seemann et al. [13]. Adhesive materials have decreased antimicrobial activity when compared to silver amalgam and zinc oxide [14]. Composite resin surface favours more plaque accumula- tion than any other restorative material, due to its intrinsic physico-chemical surface properties, and the passive and active bacterial adhesion mechanism [15]. It has been reported that composite resin and ceramics harbour thicker biofilms than glass iono - mers [16]. Several techniques have been employed in order to increase the antimicrobial activity of these materials and to inhibit biofilm formation on composite resin restora - tive surfaces, mainly by incorporating slow release antibiotics and biocides [17]. How- ever, such attempts proved short term due to its solubility over a period of time, leading to void formation in the composite resin and unfavourable mechanical behaviour of the restoration [18]. Further, such modifications provide antibacterial effect only on the surface of the composite restoration and not at the resin dentin interface, where failure occurs commonly. Literature shows various attempts at incorporation of antibacterial components such as fluorides, antibiotics, methacrylolyoxydodecyl pyidinium bromide (MDPB) and methacryloxy ethyl cetyl di-methyl ammonium chloride (DMAE-CB) in dentin adhe- sives [19, 20]. However, fluorides, antibiotics and inorganic agents are dispersed in the Keer thipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 3 of 9 matrix phase; hence it is difficult to strictly control their release kinetics [21]. Also, adhe - sive bonding may be compromised due to the constant release of these agents. To over- come this, polymerisable cationic monomers such as quaternary ammonium monomers, MDPB and DMAE-CB that can be covalently bound within the polymer matrix, were incorporated in the dental adhesive systems [21]. Since MDPB can polymerise and be immobilised in the polymer, the bonding interface is considered to be stably maintained in contrast to soluble anti-bacterial agents incorporated in the bonding agents. They also showed that MDPB exerts contact inhibition on the growth of S. mutans at the bonding interface, that leads to lesser bacterial adherence. Therefore, attempts of functionalizing adhesive system with antibacterial activity was made for proper biological seal without compromising bonding. This study is one such attempt to incorporate nisin, a polypeptide bacteriocin to fifth generation bonding agent. Nisin, a ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified lantibiotic, produced by Lactococcus lactis subsp [22, 23]. Lactis, is a food pre- servative, approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as generally regarded as safe (GRAS) that is incorporated in the binder solutions of acrylic polymer and vinyl acetate co-polymer in food packaging [24]. It has a relatively broad spectrum of anti- microbial activity against various lactic acid bacteria and other gram positive bacteria. Since nisin has yet to be tried in restorative dentistry, this study has been designed as a preliminary in-vitro evaluation of the antibacterial activity of fifth generation bonding agent incorporated with nisin, against S. mutans. Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) in conjunction with fluorescent indicators SYTO-9 and propidium iodide were used for the membrane integrity test. Materials and methods The experimental bonding agents were prepared, analysed and compared for growth of S. mutans; and their adherence and membrane integrity. Preparation of the experimental bonding agents 0.01 g and 0.05 g of Nisin (Zhejiang, Silver Elephant Bio-Engineering Co. Ltd., Taizhou, China, Lot: 20130110) were added to 1 ml of fifth generation bonding agent (BA- Adper Single Bond, 3 M ESPE, USA) each to prepare Nisin modified bonding agents NBA1— 1wt % and NBA5—5wt % respectively (NBA). The mix was kept in a cyclomixer (Tarsons Spinix Vortex Shaker, LA.SH.CY.1386974) for 1 min for proper mixing. Grouping The control group, group 1- BA (bonding agent with 0% nisin) and the two experimental groups, groups 2 and 3- NBA1 and NBA5 (1 wt% and 5 wt% NBA respectively) were evaluated for antibacterial activity against S. mutans using the following parameters. Growth of S. mutans 1 ml adhesive of each group was spread onto the bottom of the wells in a 24-well plate and polymerized for 10 s in an anaerobic chamber (Agile Lifescience Technologies India, Ltd., India). Subsequently, each well was rinsed with 1  ml sterile distilled water. Then, 250  µl of brain–heart infusion broth (BHI, Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited, Keerthipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 4 of 9 Bangalore, India) and 20 µl of distilled water were added directly onto each cured adhe- sive layer to prepare the adhesive eluent. Addition of distilled water was to compensate for water evaporation during incubation. After incubation at room temperature for 24 h, the BHI broth with the adhesive elu- ents were transferred to adjacent empty wells. A bacterial suspension having a cell con- centration of 50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) was prepared in BHI broth. Two µl of fresh broth and 20  µl of cell suspension were added to each well and incubated at 37  °C in the anaerobic chamber. Similarly, multiple such wells were cultured for the groups, each to be used for evaluation at different time intervals. Bacterial growth was estimated by changes in the optical density (OD) values of each well using spectropho- tometer (LIM 330, Labard Instruchem Pvt. Ltd., India) at 600 nm every 20 min for 2 h. Each group was tested as a set of five wells, with fresh BHI serving as blank control. All the procedures were performed aseptically. The results of the OD values were statistically analysed using one-way ANOVA fol - lowed by Tukey Post Hoc test. Kruskal Wallis non parametric test was used to analyse the growth of S. mutans at different time intervals. Adherence and membrane integrity of S. mutans Five specimens from each group were prepared by adding one drop of test material on a glass slide and curing for 20 s. 10 µl of BHI supplemented with 1% sucrose and 50 µl of bacterial suspension were inoculated onto the specimens. After incubation for 4 h, spec- imens were rinsed with distilled water to dislodge loosely adherent bacteria. This time of incubation was chosen because initial biofilm formation in the oral cavity normally occurs in 2–4 h. 1 ml of Live/Dead BacLight bacterial viability stain (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA) was carefully added to the specimen without disturbing the adherent bacteria. The submerged specimens were incubated in the dark for 15 min at room tem - perature to allow stain development for image scanning. After rinsing gently with distilled water, the fluorescence labelled specimens were observed under CLSM, (LSM 700, Carl Zeiss, Germany) at 40 × magnification and qual - itatively analysed for live (intact membrane) and dead (damaged membrane) bacteria. The Live/Dead Baclight bacterial viability stain (L13152) consists of a two nucleic acid- binding stains mixture: Syto 9 and propidium iodide. Syto 9 stains all viable bacteria in green, while propidium iodide stains in red the bacteria whose membranes are damaged (non-viable bacteria). The bacterial layer was scanned at both the green and red chan - nels (488 and 543  nm excitations) for bacteria with integral and damaged membranes respectively. Results The mean OD of the three groups and their comparison at different time intervals from 20  min to 2  h are given in Table  1 and Fig.  1 respectively. Mean OD value of control group BA (bonding agent with 0% nisin) was significantly higher at all-time intervals with a maximum of 0.83 at 120  min compared to the experimental groups, indicating that the growth of S. mutans was significantly higher in the control group. Among the experimental groups, NBA 5 showed lower OD values at each time interval as compared Keer thipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 5 of 9 Table 1 Mean optical density of adhesive eluents at different time intervals Time/ 20 min 40 min 60 min 80 min 100 min 120 min groups a a a a a a Control 0.34 ± 0.04 0.46 ± 0.04 0.662 ± 0.008 0.79 ± 0.008 0.83 ± 0.004 0.83 ± 0.008 b b b b b b NBA 1 0.13 ± 0.005 0.304 ± 0.015 0.486 ± 0.005 0.61 ± 0.008 0.63 ± 0.0006 0.62 ± 0.001 c c c c c c NBA 5 0.029 ± 0.002 0.158 ± 0.004 0.30 ± 0.007 0.47 ± 0.001 0.50 ± 0.037 0.50 ± 0.007 In each column, different superscript letters denote statistical significance 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 L 0.5 BA only NBA 1 0.4 NBA 5 0.3 0.2 0.1 20 40 60 80 100120 MINUTES Fig. 1 Comparison of mean optical density values of three groups with respect to time Fig. 2 Confocal images of adherence and membrane integrity of S. Mutans. Green emission: Live bacteria (intact membrane). Red emission: Dead bacteria (damaged membrane). A—Group 1: BA B—Group 2: NBA 1 C—Group 3: NBA 5. No contact inhibition Minimum contact inhibition Maximum contact inhibition to the NBA 1 group with the least OD values (0.029 ± 0.002) at 20 min, indicating signifi - cantly lesser growth of S. mutans compared to the NBA 1 group. These results correlated with the findings of CLSM evaluation. Confocal images (Fig.  2) revealed the presence of higher live bacteria (green) in all the samples of the Keerthipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 6 of 9 control group. Addition of nisin resulted in higher percentage of dead bacteria (red) with the NBA 5 group showing the greatest reduction in live bacteria. Discussion Some of the most common reasons for replacement of restorations are microleak- age and secondary caries, usually caused by penetration and subsequent propagation of cariogenic bacteria along the micro-gaps present in the tooth- restorative interface [6]. The type of restorative material used seems to have an effect on the composition of the micro-flora on the surface of secondary caries. Thomas et  al. indicated that bacte - rial composition in lesions around composite resins differ from that of primary lesions [25]. Beighton however has suggested that S. mutans may be a good marker for second- ary caries, though not necessarily being the etiological agent [26]. Hence S. mutans was evaluated for its adherence and membrane integrity, in the assumption that nisin may inhibit biofilm formation within 2 h of exposure. Components such as ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA) and tri ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) released from composite resins may enhance the growth of cariogenic bacteria such as Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacilli [27, 28]. A study done by Splieth et al. showed upto eight times more microbes beneath composite restorations compared to amalgam [29]. Schmaltz also showed that the components of dentin bond- ing agents stimulated the growth of cariogenic micro-organisms such as S. sorbinus and Lactobacillus [30]. Moreover, since most restorations are done on carious tooth structure prepared con- servatively retaining affected dentin, some micro-organisms may still be present in the cavity walls, left behind intentionally or otherwise [30]. The microspace between the res - toration and the cavity margin can provide a favourable environment for the cariogenic S. mutans and lactobacilli to demineralize the tooth structure. Since tooth- restoration interfaces do not provide a hermetic seal against diffusion of micro-organisms and / or their by-products, it could be beneficial if the restorative material and or the bonding agents could exert some anti-bacterial activity post insertion [31]. The discrepancy in the depth of demineralisation and resin infiltrated zone with separate etching and bond - ing protocols will further provide the suitable environment for growth of cariogenic bac- teria. Hence fifth generation bonding agent was used in this study. Nisin was incorporated at two different concentrations of 1% and 5% in the fifth gen - eration BA. The concentration of nisin was chosen in accordance to its minimum inhibi - tory concentration [32]. The results of this study showed that the growth of S. mutans was significantly higher in the control group. The higher growth rate in control group is in accordance with the study done by several authors, Schmaltz et al., Vinay and Shi- vanna, Hansel et  al. [27], who reported that the components of dentin bonding agents such as HEMA (hydroxyl ethylene methacrylate) or TEGDMA, do not inhibit the growth of cariogenic micro-organisms such as S. sorbinus and Lactobacillus acidophilus. [30, 33, 34] In our study, incorporation of nisin in the BA resulted in significantly lower growth rate of S. Mutans with the action being concentration dependent (Fig.  1). Since the experiment was performed with polymerized blocks of the BA, it can also be sur- mised that nisin leaches out to exert its antimicrobial action. Keer thipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 7 of 9 The experimental time interval of 20  min for a period of 2  h was chosen to evaluate the inhibitory effect of nisin on S. mutans biofilm formation. Both concentrations of nisin showed antibacterial effect from 20 to 80  min time period after which, the val - ues become constant, suggesting the possibility of inhibiting adhesion of the microor- ganisms on the surface of the tooth-restorative material interface. Further anti-biofilm activity of nisin incorporated adhesives is warranted in future studies to understand the duration of this action. The antibacterial action of lantibiotic nisin is based on its interaction with the target microorganism’s cell membrane. It interacts with the cell wall precursor lipid II in the membrane forming pores, thereby inhibiting cell wall biosynthesis. It binds to the lipid II forming pyrophosphates via hydrogen bonds, rendering the bacteria susceptible to nisin [35]. Nisin has more effect on gram positive bacteria since these microorganisms have relatively higher concentrations of anionic lipid for interaction with nisin, in their cyto- plasmic membrane, as compared to gram- negative species [36]. This was evidenced in the significant qualitative reduction of live bacteria in the present study, that increased as the concentration of Nisin increased from 1 to 5%. Whether this effect is effective over greater time period, against the other cariogenic microorganisms and help prevent secondary caries is the scope of future research. However, incorporation of any new additive to the bonding agent must not compro- mise their degree of conversion, mechanical properties or bond strength to composite resin. Su et al. reported that the microtensile bond strength of nisin incorporated BA is not affected when the concentration of nisin is 1%. The bond strength decreased as the concentration of nisin increased [37]. Further, the interaction of nisin with the compo- nents of the BA needs to be investigated. In today’s general issues of conventional antibiotic resistance, bacteriocins may be safely considered. However, since this is a preliminary study involving addition of nisin to the BA, further studies incorporating nisin in self etch adhesives and with multi- species biofilm is warranted to evaluate its antibacterial efficacy in clinical conditions. Future studies will also concentrate on the effect of the addition of nisin on the degree of conversion, secondary caries formation and bond strength evaluation over a period of time, before clinical trials are attempted. Conclusion Within the limitations of this in-vitro study, it can be concluded that incorporation of Nisin in fifth generation bonding agent exerts a concentration dependant antibacterial effect, both by contact inhibition and leaching out. Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the help rendered by Dr. Vidhya Sampath in revising and correcting the manuscript. Authors’ contributions GK carried out the study, collected the data and contributed to manuscript writing. NR analysed the data and helped with the manuscript writing. SM conceptualised and supervised the study, and contributed to manuscript writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding Self funded. Availability of data and materials The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Keerthipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 8 of 9 Declarations Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Author details 1 2 Chennai, I ndia. SRM Dental College, SRM Institute of Science & Technology, Ramapuram, Chennai 600089, India. Received: 5 May 2021 Accepted: 1 July 2021 References 1. Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):87–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. dental. 2011. 09. 003. 2. Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a review. Clin oral investig. 2003;7(2):63–70. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00784- 003- 0206-7. 3. Imazato S. Bio-active restorative materials with antibacterial effects: new dimension of innovation in restorative dentistry. Dent Mater J. 2009;28(1):11–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4012/ dmj. 28. 11. 4. Farrugia C, Camilleri J. Anti-microbial properties of conventional restorative filling materials and advances in antimicrobial properties of composite resins and glass ionomer cements- A literature review. Dent Mater. 2015;31(4):89–99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. dental. 2014. 12. 005. 5. Askar H, Krois J, Göstemeyer G, Bottenberg P, Zero D, Banerjee A, Schwendicke F. Secondary caries: what is it, and how it can be controlled, detected, and managed? Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(5):1869–76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00784- 020- 03268-7. 6. Mjör IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent. 2002;27(2):117–23. 7. Qvist V, Qvist J, Mjör IA. Placement and longevity of tooth-colored restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand. 1990;48(5):305–11. 8. Carvalho RM, Manso AP, Geraldeli S, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Durability of bonds and clinical success of adhesive restorations. Dent Mater. 2012;28:1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. dental. 2011. 09. 011. 9. Brackett MG, Dib A, Franco G, Estrada BE, Brackett WW. Two-year clinical performance of Clearfil SE and Clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class V lesions. Oper Dent. 2010;35:273–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2341/ 09- 266-C. 10. Liu Y, Tjaderhane L, Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Li N, Mao J, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Limitations in bonding to dentin and experimental strategies to prevent bond degradation. J Dent Res. 2011;90:953–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00220 34510 391799. 11. Neppelenbroek KH. The clinical challenge of achieving marginal adaptation in direct and indirect restorations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015;23(5):448–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1590/ 1678- 77572 015ed 005. 12. Abbasi M, Moradi Z, Mirzaei M, Kharazifard MJ, Rezaei S. Polymerization shrinkage of five bulk-fill composite resins in comparison with a conventional composite resin. J Dent. 2018;15(6):365. 13. Seemann R, Flury S, Pfefferkorn F, Lussi A, Noack MJ. Restorative dentistry and restorative materials over the next 20 years: a Delphi survey. Dent Mater. 2014;30(4):442–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. dental. 2014. 01. 013. 14. Sevinc BA, Hanley L. Antibacterial activity of dental composites containing zinc oxide nanoparticles. J Biomed Master Res B Appl Biomater. 2010;94(1):22–31. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jbm.b. 31620. 15. Montanaro L, Campoccia D, Rizzi S, Donati ME, Breschi L, Prati C, Arciola CR. Evaluation of bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans on dental restorative materials. Biomater. 2004;25(18):4457–63. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bioma teria ls. 2003. 11. 031. 16. Kuper NK, Van De Sande FH, Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, De Soet JJ, Cenci MS, Huysmans MC. Restoration materials and secondary caries using an in vitro biofilm model. J Dent Res. 2015;94(1):62–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00220 34514 553245. 17. Imazato S, Takahashi EN, Y, Kaneko T, Ebisu S, Russell RRB, . Antibacterial activity of bacteriocide-immobilised filler for resin based restoratives. Biomater. 2003;24:3605–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0142- 9612(03) 00217-5. 18. Xue J, Wang J, Feng D, Huang H, Wang M. Application of Antimicrobial Polymers in the Development of Dental Resin Composite. Molecules. 2020;25(20):4738. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ molec ules2 52047 38. 19. Imazato S, Kinomoto Y, Tarumi H, Torii M, Russell RRB, McCabe JF. Incorporation of antibacterial monomer MDPB into dentin primer. J Dent Res. 1997;76(3):768–72. 20. Xiao YH, Ma S, Chen JH, Chai ZG, Li F, Wang YJ. Antibacterial activity and bonding ability of an adhesive incorporat- ing an antibacterial monomer DMAE-CB. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater. 2009;90(2):813–7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jbm.b. 31350. 21. Li F, Chen J, Chai Z, Zhang L, Xiao Y, Fang M, Ma S. Eec ff ts of a dental adhesive incorporating antibacterial monomer on the growth, adherence and membrane integrity of Streptococcus mutans. J Endod. 2009;37:289–96. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jdent. 2008. 12. 004. 22. Daniela D Amato, Sinigaglia M (2010) Antimicrobial agents of microbial origin: Nisin. Application of alternative food preservative technologies. 83–91 23. Delves-Broughton J. Nisin and its uses. Food technol. 1990;44:100–17. 24. Kim YM, An DS, Park HJ, Park JM, Lee DS. Properties of Nisin incorporated polymer coatings as antimicrobial packag- ing materials. Packag Technol Sci. 2002;15:247–54. Keer thipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 9 of 9 25. Thomas RZ, Van der Mei HC, Van der Veen MH, de Soet JJ, Huysman MC. Bacterial composition and red fluorescence of plaque in relation to primary and secondary caries next to composite: an in situ study. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 2008;23(1):7–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1399- 302X. 2007. 00381.x. 26. Beighton D. The complex oral microflora of high-risk individuals and groups and its role in the caries process. Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2005;33(4):248–55. 27. Hansel C, Leyhausen G, Mai UE, Geurtsen W. Eec ff ts of various resin composite (Co)monomers and extracts on two caries-associated micro-organisms in vitro. J Dent Res. 1998;77(1):60–76. 28. Gupta SK, Saxena P, Pant VA, Pant AB. release and toxicity of dental resin composite. Toxicol Int. 2012;19(3):225–34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4103/ 0971- 6580. 103652. 29. Splieth C, Bernhardt O, Heinrich A, Bernhardt H, Meyer G. Anaerobic microflora under Class I and Class II composite and amalgam restorations. Quintess Inter. 2003;34(7):497–503. 30. Schmalz G, Ergucu Z, Hiller KA. Eec ff t of dentin on the antibacterial activity of dentin bonding agents. J Endod. 2004;30(5):352–8. 31. Duque C, Negrini TDC, Spolidorio DMP, Hebling J. Eec ff t of light activation on the antibacterial activity of dentin bonding agents. Braz J Oral Sci. 2009;8(4):175–80. 32. Tong Z, Huang L, Ling J, Mao X, Ning Y, Deng D. Eec ff ts of intracanal irrigant MTAD combined with Nisin at sub- minimum inhibitory concentration levels on Enterococcus faecalis growth and the expression of pathogenic genes. Plus ONE. 2014;9(3):1–6. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 00902 35. 33. Shivagange V, Shivanna V. Comparative evaluation of micro-leakage of fifth, sixth, and seventh generation dentin bonding agents: An in vitro study. J Cons Dent. 2010;13(3):136–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4103/ 0972- 0707. 71645. 34. Imazato S, Kinomoto Y, Tarumi H, Ebisu S, Tay FR. Antibacterial activity and bonding characteristics of an adhesive resin containing antibacterial monomer MDPB. Dent Mater. 2003;19(4):313–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ s0109- 5641(02) 00060-x. 35. Hasper HE, Kramer NE, Smith JL, Hillman JD, Zachariah C, Kuipers OP, De Kruijff B, Breukink E. An alternative bacte - ricidal mechanism of action for lantibiotic peptides that target lipid II. Science. 2006;313(5793):1636–7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. 11298 18. 36. Shin JM, Gwak JW, Kamarajan P, Fenno JC, Rickard AH, Kapila YL. Biomedical applications of nisin. J Appl Microbiol. 2016;120(6):1449–65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jam. 13033. 37. Su M, Yao S, Gu L, Huang Z, Mai S. Antibacterial effect and bond strength of a modified dental adhesive containing the peptide nisin. Peptides. 2018;99:189–94. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. pepti des. 2017. 10. 003. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Applied Adhesion Science Springer Journals

In vitro antibacterial effect of fifth generation dentin bonding agent incorporated with nisin on Streptococcus mutans

Download PDF
9 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/in-vitro-antibacterial-effect-of-fifth-generation-dentin-bonding-agent-p016VbPDrd

References (37)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2021
eISSN
2196-4351
DOI
10.1186/s40563-021-00135-w
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

researchmaha@gmail.com; mahalaxr@srmist.edu.in Introduction: Bacterial adherence to restorative materials such as composite resin is SRM Dental College, one of the aetiology of secondary caries. This study evaluated the antibacterial effi- SRM Institute of Science & Technology, Ramapuram, cacy of fifth generation bonding agent (BA) modified with nisin, against Streptococcus Chennai 600089, India mutans based on its growth, adherence and membrane integrity. Full list of author information is available at the end of the Methods: Adhesive eluents of the experimental bonding agents were obtained using article 250 μl Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) broth and the groups were control (BA with 0% Nisin), bonding agent with 1 wt% (NBA 1) and 5 wt% nisin (NBA 5). To this, 10 μl S. mutans cul- ture was added and incubated at 37 °C. Bacterial growth was estimated by changes in optical density using spectrophotometer every 20 min for 2 h. The results were statisti- cally analysed using one way ANOVA followed by Tukey Post Hoc test. For adherence and membrane integrity test, 10 μl of BHI supplemented with 1% sucrose and 50 μl of bacterial suspension were inoculated onto the cured specimens, and incubated for 4 h. After rinsing, 1 ml of Live/Dead BacLight bacterial viability stain was added and incu- bated in the dark for 15 min and observed under confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) for intact (green/live) and damaged (red/dead) bacterial membranes. Results: Mean optical density was significantly higher in control group at all time intervals with maximum value at 2 h (0.83 ± 0.008), while there was a concentration dependant reduction in bacterial growth with the NBA groups (0.50 ± 0.007). Corre- spondingly, the NBA groups showed higher amount of dead than live bacteria, while live bacteria were predominant in the control group. Significance: Addition of an antibacterial agent nisin in dentin bonding agent may render the resin dentin interface more resistant to bacterial penetration, and adher- ence of cariogenic bacteria like S. mutans. Keywords: Antibacterial peptide, Dentin bonding agent, Dental marginal adaptation, Nisin, Streptococcus mutans Introduction The demand for aesthetic dentistry has resulted in majority of direct anterior and pos - terior restorations being done with the more favoured material of choice, composite resin. The causes of failure of composite resin restorations is multi-factorial. A system - atic review on longevity of posterior restorations done by Demarco et  al. shows that © The Author(s) 2021. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. Keerthipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 2 of 9 these factors are related to the type and position of the tooth, demographical, socio-eco- nomical and behavioural elements [1]. The role of material characteristics is considered minimal and the primary reasons for failure of these restorations are secondary caries, fracture of the restoration or marginal defects [2]. In the recent era of minimal invasive dentistry (MID), the choice of restorative mate- rials is based on their bioactive functions that provide therapeutic effects [3]. With the present concept of minimal invasion, it is expected that more of the saved, affected hard tissue will probably harbour more residual bacteria [4]. Thus the ability of the restora - tive material to eliminate these bacteria would be advantageous to prevent microleakage and secondary caries. Hence, one of the bioactive functions proposed for these materi- als is their anti-bacterial activity that may play a major role in restorative treatment of a carious tooth, more so in high caries risk individuals. Though the effect of restorative materials on secondary caries seem limited, the degradation of the hybrid layer may lead to gap formation in the tooth-restorative interface making the tooth more susceptible to secondary caries [5]. Poor marginal adaptation and the resulting secondary caries is the most common rea- son for failure of adhesive resin based restorations [6, 7]. Advanced analytical techniques to examine the adhesive resin-dentin interfacial region have revealed a number of poten- tially deleterious phenomena that could interfere with successful dentin bonding [8–10]. Lack of marginal adaptation that eventually leads to microleakage is caused by poly- merisation shrinkage of the composite resin that results in gap formation and bacterial invasion into the interface leading to post- operative pain, marginal discolouration and secondary caries [11]. Though some advocated methods such as incremental technique, flowable resin as a liner, or use of bulk-fill composite resins do lower polymerization shrinkage and resultant stress, it is not clinically possible to eliminate shrinkage com- pletely [12]. Bioactivity toward the pulp-dentin complex and prevention of secondary caries were rated as the keys to success and future of restorative dentistry and restorative materials based on the Delphi survey report by Seemann et al. [13]. Adhesive materials have decreased antimicrobial activity when compared to silver amalgam and zinc oxide [14]. Composite resin surface favours more plaque accumula- tion than any other restorative material, due to its intrinsic physico-chemical surface properties, and the passive and active bacterial adhesion mechanism [15]. It has been reported that composite resin and ceramics harbour thicker biofilms than glass iono - mers [16]. Several techniques have been employed in order to increase the antimicrobial activity of these materials and to inhibit biofilm formation on composite resin restora - tive surfaces, mainly by incorporating slow release antibiotics and biocides [17]. How- ever, such attempts proved short term due to its solubility over a period of time, leading to void formation in the composite resin and unfavourable mechanical behaviour of the restoration [18]. Further, such modifications provide antibacterial effect only on the surface of the composite restoration and not at the resin dentin interface, where failure occurs commonly. Literature shows various attempts at incorporation of antibacterial components such as fluorides, antibiotics, methacrylolyoxydodecyl pyidinium bromide (MDPB) and methacryloxy ethyl cetyl di-methyl ammonium chloride (DMAE-CB) in dentin adhe- sives [19, 20]. However, fluorides, antibiotics and inorganic agents are dispersed in the Keer thipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 3 of 9 matrix phase; hence it is difficult to strictly control their release kinetics [21]. Also, adhe - sive bonding may be compromised due to the constant release of these agents. To over- come this, polymerisable cationic monomers such as quaternary ammonium monomers, MDPB and DMAE-CB that can be covalently bound within the polymer matrix, were incorporated in the dental adhesive systems [21]. Since MDPB can polymerise and be immobilised in the polymer, the bonding interface is considered to be stably maintained in contrast to soluble anti-bacterial agents incorporated in the bonding agents. They also showed that MDPB exerts contact inhibition on the growth of S. mutans at the bonding interface, that leads to lesser bacterial adherence. Therefore, attempts of functionalizing adhesive system with antibacterial activity was made for proper biological seal without compromising bonding. This study is one such attempt to incorporate nisin, a polypeptide bacteriocin to fifth generation bonding agent. Nisin, a ribosomally synthesized and post-translationally modified lantibiotic, produced by Lactococcus lactis subsp [22, 23]. Lactis, is a food pre- servative, approved by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as generally regarded as safe (GRAS) that is incorporated in the binder solutions of acrylic polymer and vinyl acetate co-polymer in food packaging [24]. It has a relatively broad spectrum of anti- microbial activity against various lactic acid bacteria and other gram positive bacteria. Since nisin has yet to be tried in restorative dentistry, this study has been designed as a preliminary in-vitro evaluation of the antibacterial activity of fifth generation bonding agent incorporated with nisin, against S. mutans. Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) in conjunction with fluorescent indicators SYTO-9 and propidium iodide were used for the membrane integrity test. Materials and methods The experimental bonding agents were prepared, analysed and compared for growth of S. mutans; and their adherence and membrane integrity. Preparation of the experimental bonding agents 0.01 g and 0.05 g of Nisin (Zhejiang, Silver Elephant Bio-Engineering Co. Ltd., Taizhou, China, Lot: 20130110) were added to 1 ml of fifth generation bonding agent (BA- Adper Single Bond, 3 M ESPE, USA) each to prepare Nisin modified bonding agents NBA1— 1wt % and NBA5—5wt % respectively (NBA). The mix was kept in a cyclomixer (Tarsons Spinix Vortex Shaker, LA.SH.CY.1386974) for 1 min for proper mixing. Grouping The control group, group 1- BA (bonding agent with 0% nisin) and the two experimental groups, groups 2 and 3- NBA1 and NBA5 (1 wt% and 5 wt% NBA respectively) were evaluated for antibacterial activity against S. mutans using the following parameters. Growth of S. mutans 1 ml adhesive of each group was spread onto the bottom of the wells in a 24-well plate and polymerized for 10 s in an anaerobic chamber (Agile Lifescience Technologies India, Ltd., India). Subsequently, each well was rinsed with 1  ml sterile distilled water. Then, 250  µl of brain–heart infusion broth (BHI, Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Private Limited, Keerthipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 4 of 9 Bangalore, India) and 20 µl of distilled water were added directly onto each cured adhe- sive layer to prepare the adhesive eluent. Addition of distilled water was to compensate for water evaporation during incubation. After incubation at room temperature for 24 h, the BHI broth with the adhesive elu- ents were transferred to adjacent empty wells. A bacterial suspension having a cell con- centration of 50 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) was prepared in BHI broth. Two µl of fresh broth and 20  µl of cell suspension were added to each well and incubated at 37  °C in the anaerobic chamber. Similarly, multiple such wells were cultured for the groups, each to be used for evaluation at different time intervals. Bacterial growth was estimated by changes in the optical density (OD) values of each well using spectropho- tometer (LIM 330, Labard Instruchem Pvt. Ltd., India) at 600 nm every 20 min for 2 h. Each group was tested as a set of five wells, with fresh BHI serving as blank control. All the procedures were performed aseptically. The results of the OD values were statistically analysed using one-way ANOVA fol - lowed by Tukey Post Hoc test. Kruskal Wallis non parametric test was used to analyse the growth of S. mutans at different time intervals. Adherence and membrane integrity of S. mutans Five specimens from each group were prepared by adding one drop of test material on a glass slide and curing for 20 s. 10 µl of BHI supplemented with 1% sucrose and 50 µl of bacterial suspension were inoculated onto the specimens. After incubation for 4 h, spec- imens were rinsed with distilled water to dislodge loosely adherent bacteria. This time of incubation was chosen because initial biofilm formation in the oral cavity normally occurs in 2–4 h. 1 ml of Live/Dead BacLight bacterial viability stain (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR, USA) was carefully added to the specimen without disturbing the adherent bacteria. The submerged specimens were incubated in the dark for 15 min at room tem - perature to allow stain development for image scanning. After rinsing gently with distilled water, the fluorescence labelled specimens were observed under CLSM, (LSM 700, Carl Zeiss, Germany) at 40 × magnification and qual - itatively analysed for live (intact membrane) and dead (damaged membrane) bacteria. The Live/Dead Baclight bacterial viability stain (L13152) consists of a two nucleic acid- binding stains mixture: Syto 9 and propidium iodide. Syto 9 stains all viable bacteria in green, while propidium iodide stains in red the bacteria whose membranes are damaged (non-viable bacteria). The bacterial layer was scanned at both the green and red chan - nels (488 and 543  nm excitations) for bacteria with integral and damaged membranes respectively. Results The mean OD of the three groups and their comparison at different time intervals from 20  min to 2  h are given in Table  1 and Fig.  1 respectively. Mean OD value of control group BA (bonding agent with 0% nisin) was significantly higher at all-time intervals with a maximum of 0.83 at 120  min compared to the experimental groups, indicating that the growth of S. mutans was significantly higher in the control group. Among the experimental groups, NBA 5 showed lower OD values at each time interval as compared Keer thipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 5 of 9 Table 1 Mean optical density of adhesive eluents at different time intervals Time/ 20 min 40 min 60 min 80 min 100 min 120 min groups a a a a a a Control 0.34 ± 0.04 0.46 ± 0.04 0.662 ± 0.008 0.79 ± 0.008 0.83 ± 0.004 0.83 ± 0.008 b b b b b b NBA 1 0.13 ± 0.005 0.304 ± 0.015 0.486 ± 0.005 0.61 ± 0.008 0.63 ± 0.0006 0.62 ± 0.001 c c c c c c NBA 5 0.029 ± 0.002 0.158 ± 0.004 0.30 ± 0.007 0.47 ± 0.001 0.50 ± 0.037 0.50 ± 0.007 In each column, different superscript letters denote statistical significance 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 L 0.5 BA only NBA 1 0.4 NBA 5 0.3 0.2 0.1 20 40 60 80 100120 MINUTES Fig. 1 Comparison of mean optical density values of three groups with respect to time Fig. 2 Confocal images of adherence and membrane integrity of S. Mutans. Green emission: Live bacteria (intact membrane). Red emission: Dead bacteria (damaged membrane). A—Group 1: BA B—Group 2: NBA 1 C—Group 3: NBA 5. No contact inhibition Minimum contact inhibition Maximum contact inhibition to the NBA 1 group with the least OD values (0.029 ± 0.002) at 20 min, indicating signifi - cantly lesser growth of S. mutans compared to the NBA 1 group. These results correlated with the findings of CLSM evaluation. Confocal images (Fig.  2) revealed the presence of higher live bacteria (green) in all the samples of the Keerthipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 6 of 9 control group. Addition of nisin resulted in higher percentage of dead bacteria (red) with the NBA 5 group showing the greatest reduction in live bacteria. Discussion Some of the most common reasons for replacement of restorations are microleak- age and secondary caries, usually caused by penetration and subsequent propagation of cariogenic bacteria along the micro-gaps present in the tooth- restorative interface [6]. The type of restorative material used seems to have an effect on the composition of the micro-flora on the surface of secondary caries. Thomas et  al. indicated that bacte - rial composition in lesions around composite resins differ from that of primary lesions [25]. Beighton however has suggested that S. mutans may be a good marker for second- ary caries, though not necessarily being the etiological agent [26]. Hence S. mutans was evaluated for its adherence and membrane integrity, in the assumption that nisin may inhibit biofilm formation within 2 h of exposure. Components such as ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA) and tri ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA) released from composite resins may enhance the growth of cariogenic bacteria such as Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacilli [27, 28]. A study done by Splieth et al. showed upto eight times more microbes beneath composite restorations compared to amalgam [29]. Schmaltz also showed that the components of dentin bond- ing agents stimulated the growth of cariogenic micro-organisms such as S. sorbinus and Lactobacillus [30]. Moreover, since most restorations are done on carious tooth structure prepared con- servatively retaining affected dentin, some micro-organisms may still be present in the cavity walls, left behind intentionally or otherwise [30]. The microspace between the res - toration and the cavity margin can provide a favourable environment for the cariogenic S. mutans and lactobacilli to demineralize the tooth structure. Since tooth- restoration interfaces do not provide a hermetic seal against diffusion of micro-organisms and / or their by-products, it could be beneficial if the restorative material and or the bonding agents could exert some anti-bacterial activity post insertion [31]. The discrepancy in the depth of demineralisation and resin infiltrated zone with separate etching and bond - ing protocols will further provide the suitable environment for growth of cariogenic bac- teria. Hence fifth generation bonding agent was used in this study. Nisin was incorporated at two different concentrations of 1% and 5% in the fifth gen - eration BA. The concentration of nisin was chosen in accordance to its minimum inhibi - tory concentration [32]. The results of this study showed that the growth of S. mutans was significantly higher in the control group. The higher growth rate in control group is in accordance with the study done by several authors, Schmaltz et al., Vinay and Shi- vanna, Hansel et  al. [27], who reported that the components of dentin bonding agents such as HEMA (hydroxyl ethylene methacrylate) or TEGDMA, do not inhibit the growth of cariogenic micro-organisms such as S. sorbinus and Lactobacillus acidophilus. [30, 33, 34] In our study, incorporation of nisin in the BA resulted in significantly lower growth rate of S. Mutans with the action being concentration dependent (Fig.  1). Since the experiment was performed with polymerized blocks of the BA, it can also be sur- mised that nisin leaches out to exert its antimicrobial action. Keer thipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 7 of 9 The experimental time interval of 20  min for a period of 2  h was chosen to evaluate the inhibitory effect of nisin on S. mutans biofilm formation. Both concentrations of nisin showed antibacterial effect from 20 to 80  min time period after which, the val - ues become constant, suggesting the possibility of inhibiting adhesion of the microor- ganisms on the surface of the tooth-restorative material interface. Further anti-biofilm activity of nisin incorporated adhesives is warranted in future studies to understand the duration of this action. The antibacterial action of lantibiotic nisin is based on its interaction with the target microorganism’s cell membrane. It interacts with the cell wall precursor lipid II in the membrane forming pores, thereby inhibiting cell wall biosynthesis. It binds to the lipid II forming pyrophosphates via hydrogen bonds, rendering the bacteria susceptible to nisin [35]. Nisin has more effect on gram positive bacteria since these microorganisms have relatively higher concentrations of anionic lipid for interaction with nisin, in their cyto- plasmic membrane, as compared to gram- negative species [36]. This was evidenced in the significant qualitative reduction of live bacteria in the present study, that increased as the concentration of Nisin increased from 1 to 5%. Whether this effect is effective over greater time period, against the other cariogenic microorganisms and help prevent secondary caries is the scope of future research. However, incorporation of any new additive to the bonding agent must not compro- mise their degree of conversion, mechanical properties or bond strength to composite resin. Su et al. reported that the microtensile bond strength of nisin incorporated BA is not affected when the concentration of nisin is 1%. The bond strength decreased as the concentration of nisin increased [37]. Further, the interaction of nisin with the compo- nents of the BA needs to be investigated. In today’s general issues of conventional antibiotic resistance, bacteriocins may be safely considered. However, since this is a preliminary study involving addition of nisin to the BA, further studies incorporating nisin in self etch adhesives and with multi- species biofilm is warranted to evaluate its antibacterial efficacy in clinical conditions. Future studies will also concentrate on the effect of the addition of nisin on the degree of conversion, secondary caries formation and bond strength evaluation over a period of time, before clinical trials are attempted. Conclusion Within the limitations of this in-vitro study, it can be concluded that incorporation of Nisin in fifth generation bonding agent exerts a concentration dependant antibacterial effect, both by contact inhibition and leaching out. Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the help rendered by Dr. Vidhya Sampath in revising and correcting the manuscript. Authors’ contributions GK carried out the study, collected the data and contributed to manuscript writing. NR analysed the data and helped with the manuscript writing. SM conceptualised and supervised the study, and contributed to manuscript writing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Funding Self funded. Availability of data and materials The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Keerthipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 8 of 9 Declarations Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Author details 1 2 Chennai, I ndia. SRM Dental College, SRM Institute of Science & Technology, Ramapuram, Chennai 600089, India. Received: 5 May 2021 Accepted: 1 July 2021 References 1. Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):87–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. dental. 2011. 09. 003. 2. Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a review. Clin oral investig. 2003;7(2):63–70. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00784- 003- 0206-7. 3. Imazato S. Bio-active restorative materials with antibacterial effects: new dimension of innovation in restorative dentistry. Dent Mater J. 2009;28(1):11–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4012/ dmj. 28. 11. 4. Farrugia C, Camilleri J. Anti-microbial properties of conventional restorative filling materials and advances in antimicrobial properties of composite resins and glass ionomer cements- A literature review. Dent Mater. 2015;31(4):89–99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. dental. 2014. 12. 005. 5. Askar H, Krois J, Göstemeyer G, Bottenberg P, Zero D, Banerjee A, Schwendicke F. Secondary caries: what is it, and how it can be controlled, detected, and managed? Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(5):1869–76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00784- 020- 03268-7. 6. Mjör IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent. 2002;27(2):117–23. 7. Qvist V, Qvist J, Mjör IA. Placement and longevity of tooth-colored restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand. 1990;48(5):305–11. 8. Carvalho RM, Manso AP, Geraldeli S, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Durability of bonds and clinical success of adhesive restorations. Dent Mater. 2012;28:1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. dental. 2011. 09. 011. 9. Brackett MG, Dib A, Franco G, Estrada BE, Brackett WW. Two-year clinical performance of Clearfil SE and Clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class V lesions. Oper Dent. 2010;35:273–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2341/ 09- 266-C. 10. Liu Y, Tjaderhane L, Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Li N, Mao J, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Limitations in bonding to dentin and experimental strategies to prevent bond degradation. J Dent Res. 2011;90:953–68. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00220 34510 391799. 11. Neppelenbroek KH. The clinical challenge of achieving marginal adaptation in direct and indirect restorations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015;23(5):448–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1590/ 1678- 77572 015ed 005. 12. Abbasi M, Moradi Z, Mirzaei M, Kharazifard MJ, Rezaei S. Polymerization shrinkage of five bulk-fill composite resins in comparison with a conventional composite resin. J Dent. 2018;15(6):365. 13. Seemann R, Flury S, Pfefferkorn F, Lussi A, Noack MJ. Restorative dentistry and restorative materials over the next 20 years: a Delphi survey. Dent Mater. 2014;30(4):442–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. dental. 2014. 01. 013. 14. Sevinc BA, Hanley L. Antibacterial activity of dental composites containing zinc oxide nanoparticles. J Biomed Master Res B Appl Biomater. 2010;94(1):22–31. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jbm.b. 31620. 15. Montanaro L, Campoccia D, Rizzi S, Donati ME, Breschi L, Prati C, Arciola CR. Evaluation of bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans on dental restorative materials. Biomater. 2004;25(18):4457–63. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bioma teria ls. 2003. 11. 031. 16. Kuper NK, Van De Sande FH, Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, De Soet JJ, Cenci MS, Huysmans MC. Restoration materials and secondary caries using an in vitro biofilm model. J Dent Res. 2015;94(1):62–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00220 34514 553245. 17. Imazato S, Takahashi EN, Y, Kaneko T, Ebisu S, Russell RRB, . Antibacterial activity of bacteriocide-immobilised filler for resin based restoratives. Biomater. 2003;24:3605–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0142- 9612(03) 00217-5. 18. Xue J, Wang J, Feng D, Huang H, Wang M. Application of Antimicrobial Polymers in the Development of Dental Resin Composite. Molecules. 2020;25(20):4738. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ molec ules2 52047 38. 19. Imazato S, Kinomoto Y, Tarumi H, Torii M, Russell RRB, McCabe JF. Incorporation of antibacterial monomer MDPB into dentin primer. J Dent Res. 1997;76(3):768–72. 20. Xiao YH, Ma S, Chen JH, Chai ZG, Li F, Wang YJ. Antibacterial activity and bonding ability of an adhesive incorporat- ing an antibacterial monomer DMAE-CB. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater. 2009;90(2):813–7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jbm.b. 31350. 21. Li F, Chen J, Chai Z, Zhang L, Xiao Y, Fang M, Ma S. Eec ff ts of a dental adhesive incorporating antibacterial monomer on the growth, adherence and membrane integrity of Streptococcus mutans. J Endod. 2009;37:289–96. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jdent. 2008. 12. 004. 22. Daniela D Amato, Sinigaglia M (2010) Antimicrobial agents of microbial origin: Nisin. Application of alternative food preservative technologies. 83–91 23. Delves-Broughton J. Nisin and its uses. Food technol. 1990;44:100–17. 24. Kim YM, An DS, Park HJ, Park JM, Lee DS. Properties of Nisin incorporated polymer coatings as antimicrobial packag- ing materials. Packag Technol Sci. 2002;15:247–54. Keer thipriya et al. Appl Adhes Sci (2021) 9:5 Page 9 of 9 25. Thomas RZ, Van der Mei HC, Van der Veen MH, de Soet JJ, Huysman MC. Bacterial composition and red fluorescence of plaque in relation to primary and secondary caries next to composite: an in situ study. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 2008;23(1):7–13. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1399- 302X. 2007. 00381.x. 26. Beighton D. The complex oral microflora of high-risk individuals and groups and its role in the caries process. Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2005;33(4):248–55. 27. Hansel C, Leyhausen G, Mai UE, Geurtsen W. Eec ff ts of various resin composite (Co)monomers and extracts on two caries-associated micro-organisms in vitro. J Dent Res. 1998;77(1):60–76. 28. Gupta SK, Saxena P, Pant VA, Pant AB. release and toxicity of dental resin composite. Toxicol Int. 2012;19(3):225–34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4103/ 0971- 6580. 103652. 29. Splieth C, Bernhardt O, Heinrich A, Bernhardt H, Meyer G. Anaerobic microflora under Class I and Class II composite and amalgam restorations. Quintess Inter. 2003;34(7):497–503. 30. Schmalz G, Ergucu Z, Hiller KA. Eec ff t of dentin on the antibacterial activity of dentin bonding agents. J Endod. 2004;30(5):352–8. 31. Duque C, Negrini TDC, Spolidorio DMP, Hebling J. Eec ff t of light activation on the antibacterial activity of dentin bonding agents. Braz J Oral Sci. 2009;8(4):175–80. 32. Tong Z, Huang L, Ling J, Mao X, Ning Y, Deng D. Eec ff ts of intracanal irrigant MTAD combined with Nisin at sub- minimum inhibitory concentration levels on Enterococcus faecalis growth and the expression of pathogenic genes. Plus ONE. 2014;9(3):1–6. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 00902 35. 33. Shivagange V, Shivanna V. Comparative evaluation of micro-leakage of fifth, sixth, and seventh generation dentin bonding agents: An in vitro study. J Cons Dent. 2010;13(3):136–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4103/ 0972- 0707. 71645. 34. Imazato S, Kinomoto Y, Tarumi H, Ebisu S, Tay FR. Antibacterial activity and bonding characteristics of an adhesive resin containing antibacterial monomer MDPB. Dent Mater. 2003;19(4):313–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ s0109- 5641(02) 00060-x. 35. Hasper HE, Kramer NE, Smith JL, Hillman JD, Zachariah C, Kuipers OP, De Kruijff B, Breukink E. An alternative bacte - ricidal mechanism of action for lantibiotic peptides that target lipid II. Science. 2006;313(5793):1636–7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. 11298 18. 36. Shin JM, Gwak JW, Kamarajan P, Fenno JC, Rickard AH, Kapila YL. Biomedical applications of nisin. J Appl Microbiol. 2016;120(6):1449–65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jam. 13033. 37. Su M, Yao S, Gu L, Huang Z, Mai S. Antibacterial effect and bond strength of a modified dental adhesive containing the peptide nisin. Peptides. 2018;99:189–94. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. pepti des. 2017. 10. 003. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Journal

Applied Adhesion Science – Springer Journals

Published: Jul 6, 2021

Keywords: Antibacterial peptide; Dentin bonding agent; Dental marginal adaptation; Nisin; Streptococcus mutans

There are no references for this article.