Research Article OMICS International

Bioceramics Development and ApplicationsBi

ocer

amic

s Development and Applications

ISSN: 2090-5025

El-Bediwi et al., Bioceram Dev Appl 2017, 7:1DOI: 10.4172/2090-5025.1000102

Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000102Bioceram Dev Appl, an open access journalISSN: 2090-5025

*Corresponding author: Abu Bakr El-Bediwi, Metal Physics Lab, Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Egypt, Tel: +20 50 2383781; E-mail: baker_elbediwi@yahoo.com

Received March 21, 2017; Accepted April 14, 2017; Published April 21, 2017

Citation: El-Bediwi AB, Ebrahim RH, Sarhan A, Abdeen S (2017) Influence of Antibiotics on Residual Saliva and Brushing on the Growth of Bacteria on Dental Materials. Bioceram Dev Appl 7: 102. doi: 10.4172/2090-5025.1000102

Copyright: © 2017 El-Bediwi AB, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Influence of Antibiotics on Residual Saliva and Brushing on the Growth of Bacteria on Dental MaterialsAbu Bakr El-Bediwi1*, Ebrahim RH1, Sarhan A2 and Abdeen S3

1Metal Physics Lab, Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Egypt2Polymer Research Lab, Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Egypt3Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Egypt

Keywords: Antimicrobial resistance; Fungi and Bacteria; Antibiotic; Brushing; Composite; Ceramics

IntroductionSaliva is a watery substance located in the mouths of organisms,

secreted by the salivary glands. Human saliva is composed of 99.5% wa-ter, while the other 0.5% consists of electrolytes, mucus, glycoproteins, enzymes, and antibacterial compounds. An antibiotic is any substance that delays with the ability of bacteria to function normally. It may ei-ther inhibit their growth or kill the bacteria. Also, antibiotics are used to treat bacterial infections ranging from life-threatening meningitis to common problems like acne and strep throat. The first antibiotic was penicillin which discovered in 1928 by Alexander Fleming in London, England and by the early 1940’s it was widely available. The discovery of penicillin was considered a medical miracle because it helped wipe out many of the diseases that are caused by bacteria. Dental ceramics can mimic natural teeth due to their excellent physical properties such as esthetics, biocompatibility, low thermal conductibility, and wear resis-tance [1,2]. Because of these features, dental ceramics have been exten-sively used in several rehabilitation procedures, including inlays, onlays, crowns and porcelain veneers [3]. ZrO2 has gained attention as a bio-material due to superior mechanical properties, compared to alumina (Al2O3), and chemical and biological inertness that makes it very bio-compatible [4]. Exploration into ZrO2 as a biomaterial began in 1960’s [5], with most of the work over the years focused on the use of ZrO2 in orthopedics, specifically in femoral heads for total hip replacements [6]. Dental porcelain is dimensionally stable after firing, insoluble in oral fluids, has an excellent color matching, tissue tolerance, and high wear resistance [7]. Kaolin, quartz, and feldspar are fired at high temperature to achieve desirable properties [8]. The compressive strength of dental porcelain is high, its tensile strength is very low, which is typical of a brittle solid that may fracture when flexed or when quickly heated and cooled [9]. The fusion temperature, strength and chemical inertness de-pend on the amount of alkali (or non-bridging oxygen) present in the glass [10]. Wear and frictional behavior of dental feldspathic porcelain was investigated in air and in water with a single-pass sliding technique [11]. Friction of the as-glazed porcelain was higher in water and surface damage was more extensive than in air. Gold-coating reduced the fric-tion but had no apparent effect on the mode of surface failure in these environments. The aim of this work was to study the effect of antibiotics

on natural residual saliva and study the effect of brushing on organism formed on the surface of some dental materials.

Experimental MethodMaterials

Materials used in this work are Filtek, glass ionomer, porcelain and zirconia dental materials. Also, residual natural saliva which shown in Figures 1a and 1b.

Microbiological tests

The dental restorative materials used in this study were made into suspension in sterile distilled water at different concentration 0.2 g/5 ml, 0.3 g/5 ml, 0.5 g/5 ml and 1 g/5 ml. The bacteria used in this study were staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, E. coli and Candida albicans (fungus). They have been provided by microbiology depart-ment, Faculty of medicine, Mansoura University, Egypt. Agar diffusion test was the method of antimicrobial activity. Initially staphylococcus aureus and E. coli were inoculated in maconky, Streptococcus mutans was inoculated in blood agar and fungus (Candida albicans) was inocu-lated in PDA (potato dextrose agar). All were incubated at 37ºC for 24 hour. From these cultures, bacterial suspension was prepared in sterile peptone solution, until measuring turbidity by nanophotometer (IM-PLEN) equivalent to 10 CFU/ml for bacteria and 10 CFU/ml for fun-gi. Briefly 15 ml of nutrient agar was poured into 90 mm petri dish and plates were then inoculated with 10 CFU/ml of bacteria or 10 CFU/ml of yeast. By punching the agar container with a sterile cork borer and scooping out the punched part, agar cups of 4 mm diameter were

AbstractThe antimicrobial effect of staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, E. coli and Candida albicans are de-

pendent on surface properties and restorative dental materials types. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of antibiotics on the residual natural saliva (after Filtek, glass-ionomer, porcelain and zirconia takeout from it). Also, the effect of brushing on fungi and bacteria growth in these surface materials was characterized. The results show that, bacterial growth around Filtek, glass ionomer, porcelain, and zirconia materials after takeout from saliva that is meant these materials have no resistance for E. coli, staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans and Candida albicans. The color of residual saliva changed. All antibiotics caused inhabitation zone except Ampicillin. Ciprofloxacin shows significant inhibition zone for all used materials. Also, brushing removed most if not all fungi and bacteria formed on surface dental materials.

8 7

78

Citation: El-Bediwi AB, Ebrahim RH, Sarhan A, Abdeen S (2017) Influence of Antibiotics on Residual Saliva and Brushing on the Growth of Bacteria on Dental Materials. Bioceram Dev Appl 7: 102. doi: 10.4172/2090-5025.1000102

Page 2 of 3

Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000102Bioceram Dev Appl, an open access journalISSN: 2090-5025

made. The agar had already been divided into 4 sections. Each of the material suspension at different concentrations was placed in each cup. All the plates were incubated at 37ºC for 48 hours in incubator mode (Jsgi-100T). All the plates were prepared under laminar flow (unilab) and all instruments, glass mixing slab were sterilized. The antimicrobial activity was evaluated based on zones of growth inhibition (mm).

A culture is spread on an appropriate medium. Filter paper discs containing a pre-determined concentration of an antimicrobial ((Nor 10) Norfloxacin, (Amp10) Ampicillin, (Cip5) Ciprofloxacin, (C30) Chloramphenicol, (AMC30) Amoxicillin clavulanic acid and (CXM30) Cefuroxim sodium are placed onto the infected agar plate, with equal spacing between discs (generally 3-5 discs/Petri dish). During incuba-tion, the agent diffuses from the disc, creating a concentration gradient that decreases with the distance from the discs. After incubation, sen-

sitivity is measured on the basis of the size of the inhibition zone (with no microbial growth) around each disc as shown in schematic diagram (Figures 2a and 2b) and experimental data in Figure 3.

These measured values are compared to values of a standard scale, which indicates whether the microorganism is resistant, intermediate, or sensitive to the antibiotic. Sensitive means that a clinically attained concentration of the antimicrobial inhibits the organism; resistant

Figure 1a: Residual saliva (after Filtek and glass ionomer takeout).

Figure 1b: Residual saliva (after porcelain and zirconia takeout).

(a) Spread suspension from the examined bacterial strain onto agar plates and place antibiotic-containing discs onto the inoculated plate (b) After the incubation time, antibiotic sensitivity is measured based on the size of the zone of inhibition (no growth) around each disc

Figure 2: The effect of antibiotics with the Kirby-Bauer method.

Figure 3: Effect of antibiotics on residual saliva (after Filtek, glass ionomer and zirconia material stakeout).

Figure 4: E-coli, Candida, Staph aureus and Strept growth around used dental materials.

00.5

11.5

22.5

Nor10

Amp

10

Cip5

C30

Amc

30

CXM30

inhibition zone 1.7 0 2 2.2 1 1.2

inhi

bitio

n zo

ne

antibiotics

Figure 5a: Inhibition zone versus antibiotics for Filtek.

00.5

11.5

22.5

Nor10

Amo10

Cip 5 C 30 Amc30

CXM30

Series 1 2 0 2.2 1.8 1.1 1.8

Inhi

btion

zone

Antibiotics

Figure 5b: Inhibition zone versus antibiotics for glass ionomer.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Nor10

Amo10

Cip 5 C 30 Amc30

CXM30

Series 1 2 0 2.2 1.7 0 0

Inhi

btion

zone

Antibiotics

Figure 5c: Inhibition zone versus antibiotics for porcelain.

Citation: El-Bediwi AB, Ebrahim RH, Sarhan A, Abdeen S (2017) Influence of Antibiotics on Residual Saliva and Brushing on the Growth of Bacteria on Dental Materials. Bioceram Dev Appl 7: 102. doi: 10.4172/2090-5025.1000102

Page 3 of 3

Volume 7 • Issue 1 • 1000102Bioceram Dev Appl, an open access journalISSN: 2090-5025

means that the organisms is not inhibited; intermediate means that special considerations are to be followed if the antibiotic is to be used.

Results and DiscussionAntimicrobial activity of Filtek, glass ionomer, porcelain and zir-

conia dental materials for E.coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, Strept and Candida albicans (fungi) are shown in Figure 3.

The results show that, Filtek, glass ionomer, porcelain and zirconia have no activity, no resistance, for E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Strep-tococcus mutans and Candida albicans. That is mean microorganisms (bacteria and fungi) stick on these materials surface which effects on all surface properties (Figure 4).

Bacterial strains grown in saliva cultures along with Filtek, glass ionomer and zirconia showed sensitivity with Norfloxacin 10, Ampi-cilin 10, Ciprofloxacin 5, Chloramphenicol 30, Amoxicillin clavulanic acid 30 and Cefuroxime sodium 30. Especially Ciprofloxacin shows significant inhibition zone as seen in Figures 5a, 5b, 5c and 5d. Also, microbiological results with different materials showed similar result.

Effect of brushing on surface microstructure and formed mi-croorganism

Figures 6a and 6b, 7a and 7b, 8a and 8b and 9a and 9b show scan-ning electron micrographs, SEM, of Filtek, glass ionomer, porcelain, and zirconia dental materials. SEM analysis shows that, after brushing some not all microorganisms removed (still some of them stay on den-tal material surface). Also, the surface microstructure of used dental materials changed after brushing and appeared as rough as before.

ConclusionFrom our result, it is concluded that: Filtek, glass ionomer, porce-

lain and zirconia have no resist to microorganisms. Bacterial strains grown in saliva cultures along with Filtek, glass ionomer and zirconia showed sensitivity with used antibiotic especially Ciprofloxacin. Also after surface brushing some not all microorganisms removed with changed its microstructure.

References

1. O’Brien WJ (2002) Dental materials and their Selection (3rdedn) Dental porcelain. Hanover Park, IL: Quintessence Pub. Co. Inc. Chicago.

2. Camacho GB, Vinha D, Panzeri H, Nonaka T, Gonçalves M (2006) Surface roughness of a dental ceramic after polishing with different vehicles and diamond pastes. Braz Dent J 17: 191-194.

3. Anusavice KJ (1993) Recent developments in restorative dental ceramics. J Am Dent Assoc 124: 72-84.

4. Ferraris M, Verne E, Appendino P, Moisescu C, Krajewski A, et al. (2000) Coatings on zirconia for medical applications. Biomaterials 21: 765-773.

5. Helmer JD, Driskell TD (1969) Research on bioceramics, Symposium on use of ceramics as surgical implants, Clemson, South Carolina: Clemson University.

6. Cales B, Stefani Y, Lilley E (1994) Long-term in vivo and in vivo aging of a zirconia ceramic used in orthopedics. J Biomed Mater Res Appl Biomater 28: 619-624.

7. Leinfelder KF (2000) Porcelain esthetics for the 21st century. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 131: 47S-51S.

8. Naylor WP (1986) Non-gold base dental casting alloys. Volume 2. Porcelain-Fused-to-Metal Alloys. School of Aerospace Medicine Brooks AFB, Texas.

9. Lacy AM (1977) The chemical nature of dental porcelain. Dent Clin North Am 21: 661.

10. Jones DW (1998) A brief overview of dental ceramics. J Can Dent Assoc 64: 648-651.

11. Miller GR, Powers JM, Ludema KC (1975) Frictional behavior and surface failure of dental feldspathic porcelain. Wear 31: 307-316.

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

Nor10 Amp10

Cip 5 C 30 Amc30

CXM30

Series 1 2.4 0 3.2 1 0.9 0

Inhi

btion

zone

Antibiotics

Figure 5d: Inhibition zone versus antibiotics for zirconia.

a) After aging in saliva b) After brushingFigure 6: Filtek before and after brushing.

a) After aging in saliva b) After brushingFigure 7: Glass ionomer before and after brushing.

a) After aging in saliva b) After brushingFigure 8: Porcelain before and after brushing.

a) After aging in saliva b) After brushingFigure 9: Zirconia before and after brushing.

Citation: El-Bediwi AB, Ebrahim RH, Sarhan A, Abdeen S (2017) Influence of Antibiotics on Residual Saliva and Brushing on the Growth of Bacteria on Dental Materials. Bioceram Dev Appl 7: 102. doi: 10.4172/2090-5025.1000102