IADR Abstract Archives

Potential Antibacterial Composite Resin Infused with Hydrated CaO

Objectives: Composite resin is one of the most promising restorative materials today. It is often associated with superior esthetic qualities, ease of use and a conservative approach towards cavity preparation. However, microorganisms accumulate more on the surface of this restoration than other restorative materials which causes secondary caries and eventually leads to failed restorations. The current study aimed to address this drawback by incorporating hydrated calcium oxide (CaO) from calcined Asian moon scallop (Amusium pleuronectes) shells to commercially-available composite resin to produce an antibacterial property.
Methods: One control group and three experimental groups (composite containing 1%, 5% and 10% hydrated CaO) were utilized. Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion susceptibility test was conducted to evaluate the antibacterial property of the groups against gram-positive cocci. Furthermore, the properties of the composite resin, specifically the flexural strength, depth of cure, water sorption and solubility were also assessed to determine if these were compromised upon the addition of hydrated CaO. Shapiro-Wilk Test, Independent Samples t-Test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for data interpretation.
Results: The experimental groups with hydrated CaO significantly inhibited the growth of gram-positive cocci having p values of 0.015, 0.020 and 0.027 respectively when compared to the control group. These results favor the experimental groups. Moreover, there was no significant difference on the flexural strength, depth of cure, water sorption and solubility of the experimental groups and control group except that of the 5% concentration which had better polymerization (p=0.034) and the 10% concentration which was more water soluble (p=0.046).
Conclusions: It can be concluded that composite resin with hydrated CaO can be a promising restorative material with antibacterial efficacy and largely uncompromised properties. This innovation, alongside further research, can prevent the occurrence of failed restorations due to secondary caries formation.

Division:
Meeting: 2023 South East Asian Division Meeting (Singapore)
Location: Singapore
Year: 2023
Final Presentation ID: 102
Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s): Dental Materials 2: Polymer-based Materials

Authors

Canlas, Bn. Lucky ( Centro Escolar University , Manila , Manila , Philippines )

Lacanienta, Mary Iodine ( Centro Escolar University , Manila , Manila , Philippines )

Barongan, Princess Kyla Laine ( Centro Escolar University , Manila , Manila , Philippines )

Catapangan, Natalia Paola ( Centro Escolar University , Manila , Manila , Philippines )

Mendoza, Gwyneth Mari ( Centro Escolar University , Manila , Manila , Philippines )

Algas, Hannah Karla ( Centro Escolar University , Manila , Manila , Philippines )

Mendoza, Harren ( Centro Escolar University , Manila , Manila , Philippines )

Atrero, Marithe ( Centro Escolar University , Manila , Manila , Philippines )

Mendoza, Andrea Denise ( Centro Escolar University , Manila , Manila , Philippines )

Andres, Maricar Joy ( Centro Escolar University , Manila , Manila , Philippines )

Financial Interest Disclosure: NONE

SESSION INFORMATION

Poster Session
IADR-SEA Hatton Award (Junior Category) - Poster Session
Wednesday, 11/22/2023 , 03:30PM - 05:00PM

TABLES

Table 1. Comparison of Antibacterial Efficacy of the Control and Experimental Groups

Comparisons	Mean (mm)	z	p-value	Decision on H0	Interpretation
Control	0.000	8.000	0.015*	Reject	Significant
1% hydrated CaO	4.000
Control	0.000	7.000	0.020*	Reject	Significant
5% hydrated CaO	4.667
Control	0.000	6.000	0.027*	Reject	Significant
10% hydrated CaO	6.000

As depicted in Table 1, there is a significant difference between the control and experimental groups. The finding signifies that the composite with 1%, 5% and 10% hydrated CaO have an antibacterial property while the control group has none.
Table 2. Comparison of the Physical and Mechanical Properties of the Control and Experimental Groups

Properties	Comparisons	Mean	z	p-value	Decision on H0	Interpretation
Flexural Strength	Control	71.754 MPa	0.218	0.827	Accept	Not Significant
	1% Hydrated CaO	59.417 MPa
	Control	71.754 MPa	0.655	0.513	Accept	Not Significant
	5% Hydrated CaO	45.161 MPa
	Control	71.754 MPa	1.528	0.127	Accept	Not Significant
	10% Hydrated CaO	40.092 MPa
Depth of Cure	Control	4.900 mm	1.000	0.317	Accept	Not Significant
	1% Hydrated CaO	4.950 mm
	Control	4.900 mm	2.121	0.034*	Reject	Significant
	5% Hydrated CaO	5.000 mm
	Control	4.900 mm	1.650	0.099	Accept	Not Significant
	10% Hydrated CaO	4.983 mm
Water Sorption	Control	0.00001321 g/mm3	1.291	0.197	Accept	Not Significant
	1% Hydrated CaO	0.00000943 g/mm3
	Control	0.00001321 g/mm3	0.471	0.637	Accept	Not Significant
	5% Hydrated CaO	0.00000755 g/mm3
	Control	0.00001321 g/mm3	1.650	0.099	Accept	Not Significant
	10% Hydrated CaO	0.00001887 g/mm3
Water Solubility	Control	0.00000755 g/mm3	0.745	0.456	Accept	Not Significant
	1% Hydrated CaO	0.00000943 g/mm3
	Control	0.00000755 g/mm3	0.000	1.000	Accept	Not Significant
	5% Hydrated CaO	0.00000755 g/mm3
	Control	0.00000755 g/mm3	1.993	0.046*	Reject	Significant
	10% Hydrated CaO	0.00002264 g/mm3

Table 2 shows that there is no significant difference between the control and experimental groups in terms of flexural strength, depth of cure, water sorption and water solubility except that of the 5% hydrated CaO which polymerized better and the 10% hydrated CaO which became more soluble. The results reveal that the addition of hydrated CaO to composite resin did not compromise the majority of its properties.

IMAGES

3963961_File000000.jpg