Is an antibacterial adhesive system more effective than cavity disinfectants?

Methods: Materials were tested using agar well technique and a cavity tooth model. In the well technique only primer solution of the adhesive was tested. The test materials were filled in the agar wells of plates inoculated with Streptococcus mutans (CCUG 6519). After 48 hours, the zones of inhibitions were measured in milimeters. For the cavity tooth model test, five cavities were prepared in the flat occlusal dentin of human extracted molars. The teeth were left in broth culture of Streptococcus mutans at 37oC for 72 hours allowing bacteria to invade. All materials were applied in the same manner as clinical application following the manufacturer's instructions on each of the four infected cavities and the fifth was left unapplied for control. The teeth were kept in saline for 72 hours. Standart amounts of dentin chips were obtained from the cavity walls and the number of bacteria recovered was counted.

Results: The results were analyzed by ANOVA, Dunnett C and Bonferroni tests. For the agar well technique, Clearfil Protect Bond primer exhibited greater inhibition zones than all three cavity disinfectants (p<0.05). When tested by the cavity method, the application of Clearfil Protect Bond resulted in significantly less bacterial recovery than the cavity disinfectants. For both microbiological methods, there were no significant differences between the antibacterial activities of Consepsis and Tubulicid Red and they were superior to hydrogen peroxide.

Conclusions: Clearfil Protect Bond system was able to inactivate the bacteria in the cavity more effectively in comparison to tested cavity disinfectants.