Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan 16;15(1):2173.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-78396-1.

Resin composite aggregated S-PRG particles are not superior to non-S-PRG under microcosm biofilm

Andrea Freire  1   2 , Victor Augusto Alves Bento  3   4 , Eduardo Inocente Jussiani  5 , Avacir Casanova Andrello  5 , Maria Carolina Silva Marques  6
Affiliations

Resin composite aggregated S-PRG particles are not superior to non-S-PRG under microcosm biofilm

Andrea Freire et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

This study assessed the effect of composite resins, aggregated or not with S-PRG particles, and the use of toothpaste in controlling demineralization and bacterial growth. Human molars were distributed into 3 groups: control (CT) - sound teeth, Beautifil Bulk Restorative System (aggregated with S-PRG) (BB), Filtek One Bulk Fill (without S-PRG) (FB). Teeth destined for groups BB and FB previously received Class I preparations (4 × 4 × 4 mm), followed by single-increment restorations. All teeth were sectioned mesiodistally, with all specimens subjected to cariogenic challenge for 5 days, including microcosm biofilm formation. Half of each tooth was exposed to toothpaste (CTF, BBF, FBF). The loss of microhardness was assessed considering the initial microhardness as 100% on enamel, dentin, and composite resin substrates. Colony Forming Units (CFU/mL) were counted in 3 media. Data analysis used one-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD test, and paired t-test (α = 0.05). Toothpaste significantly reduced CFU/mL for total bacteria and genus Streptococcus (p < 0.05), with no significant difference for Streptococcus mutans. Enamel microhardness was positively affected by toothpaste. Both restorative systems controlled enamel demineralization, with FB and FBF outperforming BB and BBF. There was minor degradation of both composite resins, between 10% and 22%. Toothpaste effectively reduced microorganisms, irrespective of the composite resin. Regarding demineralization control, both restorative systems, with and without S-PRG particles, were effective on enamel.

Keywords: Demineralization; Dental caries; Resin composite; Secondary caries; Toothpaste.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics approval: All procedures performed in this study involving human teeth were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national human research committee (CEP/UFMS - Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (MS/Brazil); protocol: 3.678.506, CAAE: 21527119.6.0000.0021) and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic diagram of the tooth preparation methodology for carrying out the tests.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Representative images of the experimental protocol.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Schematic representation of the indentations. Surface microhardness measurements carried out on the composite resin substrate and 40 μm from the adhesive interface on enamel and dentin substrates in both protected (baseline) and unprotected (test) areas.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Microbial quantification graphs in BHI (a Total microorganisms), MS (b Total Streptococcus) and MSBS media (cStreptococcus Mutans), according to the groups evaluated. Columns represent mean and standard deviation (n = 9), when connected with the asterisk (*) they are statistically different (paired t-test, p < 0.05) and (**) p < 0.01. Capital letters compare groups without using toothpaste, while lowercase letters compare groups using toothpaste (Tukey test). Groups identified with different letters show a statistical difference (p < 0.05).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Micrographs obtained by SEM with magnification of 30X (a-g) tooth / restoration) and 1500X (enamel (h-n), dentin (o-u) and composite resin (v-z)), in the protected (baseline) and unprotected (test) areas according to the groups evaluated: CT - control with healthy teeth, without the use of toothpaste; CTF - control with healthy teeth, using toothpaste; BB - S-PRG composite resin (Beautifil Bulk Restorative/FL Bond II adhesive system) without the use of toothpaste; BBF - S-PRG composite resin (Beautifil Bulk Restorative/FL Bond II adhesive system) using toothpaste; FB - composite resin (Filtek One Bulk Fill/ Scotchbond Universal) without using toothpaste; FBF - composite resin (Filtek One Bulk Fill/ Scotchbond Universal) with the use of toothpaste. Black arrows indicate biofilm on the substrate and white stars indicate the residual presence of toothpaste, which may be related to the formation of calcium fluoride
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Micrographs obtained by SEM with magnification of 30X (a-g) tooth / restoration) and 1500X (enamel (h-n), dentin (o-u) and composite resin (v-z)), in the protected (baseline) and unprotected (test) areas according to the groups evaluated: CT - control with healthy teeth, without the use of toothpaste; CTF - control with healthy teeth, using toothpaste; BB - S-PRG composite resin (Beautifil Bulk Restorative/FL Bond II adhesive system) without the use of toothpaste; BBF - S-PRG composite resin (Beautifil Bulk Restorative/FL Bond II adhesive system) using toothpaste; FB - composite resin (Filtek One Bulk Fill/ Scotchbond Universal) without using toothpaste; FBF - composite resin (Filtek One Bulk Fill/ Scotchbond Universal) with the use of toothpaste. Black arrows indicate biofilm on the substrate and white stars indicate the residual presence of toothpaste, which may be related to the formation of calcium fluoride
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Micrographs obtained by SEM with magnification of 30X (a-g) tooth / restoration) and 1500X (enamel (h-n), dentin (o-u) and composite resin (v-z)), in the protected (baseline) and unprotected (test) areas according to the groups evaluated: CT - control with healthy teeth, without the use of toothpaste; CTF - control with healthy teeth, using toothpaste; BB - S-PRG composite resin (Beautifil Bulk Restorative/FL Bond II adhesive system) without the use of toothpaste; BBF - S-PRG composite resin (Beautifil Bulk Restorative/FL Bond II adhesive system) using toothpaste; FB - composite resin (Filtek One Bulk Fill/ Scotchbond Universal) without using toothpaste; FBF - composite resin (Filtek One Bulk Fill/ Scotchbond Universal) with the use of toothpaste. Black arrows indicate biofilm on the substrate and white stars indicate the residual presence of toothpaste, which may be related to the formation of calcium fluoride
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Micrographs obtained by SEM with magnification of 30X (a-g) tooth / restoration) and 1500X (enamel (h-n), dentin (o-u) and composite resin (v-z)), in the protected (baseline) and unprotected (test) areas according to the groups evaluated: CT - control with healthy teeth, without the use of toothpaste; CTF - control with healthy teeth, using toothpaste; BB - S-PRG composite resin (Beautifil Bulk Restorative/FL Bond II adhesive system) without the use of toothpaste; BBF - S-PRG composite resin (Beautifil Bulk Restorative/FL Bond II adhesive system) using toothpaste; FB - composite resin (Filtek One Bulk Fill/ Scotchbond Universal) without using toothpaste; FBF - composite resin (Filtek One Bulk Fill/ Scotchbond Universal) with the use of toothpaste. Black arrows indicate biofilm on the substrate and white stars indicate the residual presence of toothpaste, which may be related to the formation of calcium fluoride
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Representative micro-CT images of a sample from each group. LDE - Lesion depth in enamel; LDD - Lesion depth in dentin
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Eltahlah, D., Lynch, C. D., Chadwick, B. L., Blum, I. R. & Wilson N.H.F. An update on the reasons for placement and replacement of direct restorations. J. Dent.72 (5), 1–7. 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.03.001 (2018). - PubMed
    1. Aminoroaya, A. et al. A review of dental composites: challenges, chemistry aspects, filler influences, and future insights. Compos. Part. B. 216, 108852. 10.1016/j.compositesb.2021.108852 (2021).
    1. Demarco, F. F. et al. N.J.M. Longevity of composite restorations is definitely not only about materials. Dent. Mater.39 (1), 1–12. 10.1016/j.dental.2022.11.009 (2023). - PubMed
    1. Maran, B. M. et al. Nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid resin-based composite in patients with direct restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent.99 (8), 103407. 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103407 (2020). - PubMed
    1. Veloso, S. R. M. et al. Clinical performance of bulk-fill and conventional resin composite restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Investig. 23 (1), 221–233. 10.1007/s00784-018-2429-7 (2019). - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources