This study evaluated the cariostatic effect of antibacterial self-etching adhesive systems, by means of an in vitro bacterial caries model. Seventy-five prepared bovine slabs were randomly divided into groups (n=15): (1) unbonded composite, no carious challenge (UNB-NC); (2) unbonded composite, carious challenge (UNB-C); (3) Clearfil SE Bond, no antibacterial agent (CSE); (4) Protect Bond, containing MDPB and fluoride (PB); and (5) Reactmer Bond, fluoride-releasing (RB). All preparations were restored with Filtek Z-250. Groups (2)-(5) were submitted to a medium containing Streptococcus mutans (ATCC-- 25175) for 5 days, and Group (1) was kept in a noninoculated medium. Insoluble polysaccharides present in tooth biofilms were quantified, Knoop hardness (KHN) was measured on the enamel adjacent to restorations, and standard 35-mm polarized light photomicrographs were taken as illustrations. Polysaccharide and Knoop hardness results were analyzed with the use of ANOVA, with a split-split-plot statistical design for KHN. Except for Group (1), all groups showed similar caries formation. Biofilm over PB restorations showed the smallest amounts of polysaccharides (14.37 microg/mg), and CSE showed the highest amounts (20.87 microg/mg). All self-etching systems tested were unable to inhibit secondary caries in a bacterial model simulating a high caries challenge, even though there was reduced glucan synthesis provided by the adhesive system containing MDPB and fluoride.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lobo et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: