COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BIOFILM FORMATION ON DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS

Main Article Content

Sobia Akhter
Omer Hafeez Kaleem
Nimrah Khalil
Abdul Qadir
Shah Salman Khan
Syed Muhammad Faran Ali

Keywords

.

Abstract

Background: Biofilm growth on dental material restorations is a significant concern, as it can lead to secondary infections, caries, and periodontal disease. Biofilms have the capacity to adhere to various surfaces, a property that is determined by the material.


Objective: To identify the biofilm on composite resin, zirconia, and acrylic resin after 48 hours of exposure in the presence of bacteria, as well as the influence of roughness on bacterial adhesion.


Methods: Streptococcus mutans was used in this comparative in vitro study to ascertain biofilm formation on three restorative materials. The surface roughness was determined using the profilometer, and the growth of the biofilm was determined using crystal violet stain and spectrophotometer analysis.


Results: Acrylic resin was noted to exhibit the highest biofilm-forming properties, followed by composite resin with the least biofilm-forming properties in the zirconia. There were some statistically significant differences between the materials (p < 0.05).


Conclusion: Biofilm formation is significantly influenced by surface roughness; the smoother the surface, such as zirconia, the less bacterial adhesion occurs.

Abstract 0 | PDF Downloads 0

References

1. Simoneti DM, Pereira-Cenci T, Dos Santos MB. Comparison of material properties and biofilm formation in interim single crowns obtained by 3D printing and conventional methods. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2022 Jan 1;127(1):168-72.
2. Osman RB, Khoder G, Fayed B, Kedia RA, Elkareimi Y, Alharbi N. Influence of fabrication technique on adhesion and biofilm formation of Candida albicans to conventional, milled, and 3D-printed denture base resin materials: a comparative in vitro study. Polymers. 2023 Apr 10;15(8):1836.
3. Wuersching SN, Westphal D, Stawarczyk B, Edelhoff D, Kollmuss M. Surface properties and initial bacterial biofilm growth on 3D-printed oral appliances: a comparative in vitro study. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2023 Jun;27(6):2667-77.
4. Mazurek-Popczyk J, Nowicki A, Arkusz K, Pałka Ł, Zimoch-Korzycka A, Baldy-Chudzik K. Evaluation of biofilm formation on acrylic resins used to fabricate dental temporary restorations with the use of 3D printing technology. BMC Oral Health. 2022 Oct 13;22(1):442.
5. Shaju A, Thomas A, Roselin P. Antimicrobial Activity of Azadirachta indica and Moringa oleifera on oral biofilm-forming bacteria—A comparative study. Environmental Biology: Advanced Research and Multidisciplinary Applications; JPS Scientific Publications: Olaipadi, India. 2025:121.
6. Jaeggi M, Gyr S, Astasov‐Frauenhoffer M, Zitzmann NU, Fischer J, Rohr N. Influence of different zirconia surface treatments on biofilm formation in vitro and in situ. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2022 Apr;33(4):424-32.
7. Oliveira DC, Thomson JJ, Alhabeil JA, Toma JM, Plecha SC, Pacheco RR, Cuevas-Suárez CE, Piva E, Lund RG. In vitro Streptococcus mutans adhesion and biofilm formation on different esthetic orthodontic archwires. The Angle Orthodontist. 2021 Nov 1;91(6):786-93.
8. Wiriyasatiankun P, Sakoolnamarka R, Thanyasrisung P. The impact of an alkasite restorative material on the pH of Streptococcus mutans biofilm and dentin remineralization: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2022 Aug 8;22(1):334.
9. Shineh G, Mobaraki M, Perves Bappy MJ, Mills DK. Biofilm formation, and related impacts on healthcare, food processing and packaging, industrial manufacturing, marine industries, and sanitation–a review. Applied Microbiology. 2023 Jun 26;3(3):629-65.
10. Hasan HA, Abdulrahman GY. Treatment and prevention of oral biofilms by clove _Gold nanoparticles (Comparative study). NTU Journal of Pure Sciences. 2024 Apr 6;3(1):36-41.
11. Ouldyerou A, Mehboob H, Mehboob A, Merdji A, Aminallah L, Mukdadi OM, Barsoum I, Junaedi H. Biomechanical performance of resin composite on dental tissue restoration: A finite element analysis. PloS one. 2023 Dec 21;18(12):e0295582.
12. Giti R, Dabiri S, Motamedifar M, Derafshi R. Surface roughness, plaque accumulation, and cytotoxicity of provisional restorative materials fabricated by different methods. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 5;16(4):e0249551.
13. Kamarehei F, Mehdiabadi M, Naderi F. Antibacterial effects of natural compounds on biofilm formation of Streptococcus mutans. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research. 2022 Dec;8(6):1426-33.
14. Muchova M, Balacco DL, Grant MM, Chapple IL, Kuehne SA, Hirschfeld J. Fusobacterium nucleatum subspecies differ in biofilm forming ability in vitro. Frontiers in Oral Health. 2022 Mar 15;3:853618.

15. Feiz A, Nicoo MA, Parastesh A, Jafari N, Sarfaraz D. Comparison of antibacterial activity and fluoride release in tooth-colored restorative materials: Resin-modified glass ionomer, zirconomer, giomer, and cention N. Dental research journal. 2022 Jan 1;19(1):104.
16. Zayed SM, Aboulwafa MM, Hashem AM, Saleh SE. Biofilm formation by Streptococcus mutans and its inhibition by green tea extracts. Amb Express. 2021 May 25;11(1):73.
17. Hawas S, Verderosa AD, Totsika M. Combination therapies for biofilm inhibition and eradication: a comparative review of laboratory and preclinical studies. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology. 2022 Feb 25;12:850030.
18. Pinto NS, Jorge GR, Vasconcelos J, Probst LF, De-Carli AD, Freire A. Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2023 Jun 15;23(1):394.
19. Miao L, Wang C, Adyel TM, Zhao J, Yan N, Wu J, Hou J. Periphytic biofilm formation on natural and artificial substrates: comparison of microbial compositions, interactions, and functions. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2021 Jul 26;12:684903.

Most read articles by the same author(s)