Biofilm and Roughness of Materials Used to Restore Cervical Lesions

Method: Four materials, conventional glass ionomer cement (Ketac Fill Plus, 3M-Espe); resin modified glass ionomer cement, (Vitremer, 3M-Espe); nanofilled glass ionomer cement (Ketac Nano, 3M-Espe); and nanofilled resin composite (Filtek XL350 XT, 3M-Espe) were used. Five samples were used for surface roughness test using a 3D profilometry (Taylor Hobson Ltd, Leicester, LE). The amplitude parameters Sa and Sq, spatial parameter: Sds and hybrid parameter: Ssc were extracted in 4mm² area using cut off of 0.25mm. Five samples per group were used to evaluate the contact angle measurement. One drop of deionized water was deposited on the flat surface using automatic pipettes (200 μm) to measure the contact angle (^odegree). Ten samples per group were used for biofilm formation. After 24 hours, samples were stained with fluorescein 1% and biovolume and mean thickness of the biofilm were measured using confocal laser microscopic analysis (LSM META 510, Carl Zeiss AG). Data of all parameters were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (α=.05).

Result: The table shows the contact angle (CA^o), biovolume (BV-μm3/μm2), thickness of the biofilm (TB-µm), Sa, Sq, Sds, Ssc (µm) means (different letters means significant differences).

Conclusion: The spatial and hybrid parameters are important to correlate biofilm with roughness of surface. Z350XT and Ketac Nano showed significantly lower surface roughness and cumulated lower biofilm than the both tested glass ionomer cements, and thus more indicated to restore sub-gingival lesions.