Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative study evaluates antimicrobial behavior of three dental cements against oral microbes, suggesting material selection based on microbial risk.
This study aimed to compare the surface morphology and antimicrobial/antibiofilm behavior of three semi-permanent cements used in implantology: FOZ (zinc oxide-based), DT (resin-based), and CIS (glass ionomer), after aging in air and artificial saliva, and after exposure to clinically relevant oral microbial strains. Surface morphology and elemental composition were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), and antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity was quantified by determining the number of colony-forming units (CFU∕mL) for Gram-positive bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis), Gram-negative bacteria (Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa), and fungi (Candida albicans, C. parapsilosis). FOZ exhibited a very rough surface rich in zinc, associated with the most pronounced reduction in microbial adhesion; CIS showed a relatively compact ionomer matrix with barium-rich domains and good antibiofilm activity, particularly against P. aeruginosa, while DT exhibited a predominantly organic, smooth surface with isolated inorganic aggregates and a more pronounced inhibition profile against E. coli. The results indicate that the microstructure and surface chemical composition of the cements directly influence the pattern of microbial colonization and antibiofilm efficacy, providing a rationale for selecting the cementing material based on microbiological risk and specific clinical conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Petrescu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: