AbstractStatement of problem.
Both direct and indirect techniques are used for dental restorations. Which technique should be preferred or whether they are equivalent with respect to bacterial adhesion is unclear.Purpose.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the affinity of bacterial biofilm to dental restorative composite resins placed directly and indirectly.Material and methods.
Five direct composite resins for restorations (Venus Diamond, Adonis, Optifil, Enamel Plus HRi, Clearfil Majesty Esthetic) and 3 indirect composite resins (Gradia, Estenia, Signum) were selected. The materials were incubated in unstimulated whole saliva for 1 day. The biofilms grown were collected and their bacterial cells counted. In parallel, the composite resin surface morphology was analyzed with atomic force microscopy. Both bacterial cell count and surface topography parameters were subjected to statistical analysis (α=.05).Results.
Indirect composite resins showed significantly lower levels than direct composite resins for bacterial cell adhesion, (P<.001). No significant differences were observed within the direct composite resins (P>.05). However, within the indirect composite resins a significantly lower level was found for Gradia than Estenia or Signum (P<.01). A partial correlation was observed between composite resin roughness and bacterial adhesion when the second and particularly the third-order statistical moments of the composite resin height distributions were considered.Conclusions.
Indirect dental restorative composite resins were found to be less prone to biofilm adhesion than direct composite resins. A correlation of bacterial adhesion to surface morphology exists that is described by kurtosis; thus, advanced data analysis is required to discover possible insights into the biologic effects of morphology.