Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-06-2017 | Original Article

No evidence for the growth-stimulating effect of monomers on cariogenic Streptococci

Authors: Ivana Nedeljkovic, Kumiko Yoshihara, Jan De Munck, Wim Teughels, Bart Van Meerbeek, Kirsten L. Van Landuyt

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 5/2017

Abstract

Background

In spite of contradicting results, the high susceptibility of composites for secondary caries is still often associated with the bacterial growth-stimulating effect of released methacrylate monomers. However, most studies that showed this effect were performed with techniques having inherent limitations (spectrophotometry).

Objectives

Therefore, our objective was to determine the effect of four methacrylate monomers (2-Hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA), ethylene glycol dimethacrylate (EGDMA), diethylene glycol dimethacrylate (DEGDMA)) on the growth of two caries-associated bacteria, Streptococcus mutans and sobrinus, and one non-cariogenic species, Streptococcus sanguinis, using TaqMan quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) to quantify bacterial DNA.

Materials and methods

Cultures were exposed to monomer solutions selected after spectrophotometric growth measurements. At baseline and predetermined time intervals, bacterial DNA was extracted and quantified with TaqMan qPCR. Biofilms grown in the presence of monomers were analyzed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Results

Spectrophotometry indeed showed increased growth rates of all three strains with 5 mM TEGDMA, EGDMA, and DEGDMA and increased total biomass of S. sanguinis with 5 mM TEGDMA. However, qPCR failed to show any growth-stimulating effect of these monomers on S. mutans and S. sobrinus. In contrast, some monomers exhibited a growth-inhibiting effect on S. sanguinis. SEM revealed extracellular matter in S. sobrinus and S. sanguinis biofilms, which might be attributed to polymer formation.

Conclusions

Techniques which quantify bacterial DNA are more appropriate to evaluate bacterial growth in the presence of monomers than spectrophotometry.

Clinical relevance

Even though methacrylate monomers did not affect the growth of cariogenic species, growth inhibition of S. sanguinis, a non-cariogenic antagonistic species, may lead to ecological shifts towards higher cariogenicity.

Kopperud SE, Tveit AB, Gaarden T, Sandvik L, Espelid I (2012) Longevity of posterior dental restorations and reasons for failure. Eur J Oral Sci 120:539–548. doi:10.1111/eos.12004 CrossRefPubMed

Rho YJ, Namgung C, Jin BH, Lim BS, Cho BH (2013) Longevity of direct restorations in stress-bearing posterior cavities: a retrospective study. Oper Dent 38:572–582. doi:10.2341/12-432-C CrossRefPubMed

Roumanas ED (2010) The frequency of replacement of dental restorations may vary based on a number of variables, including type of material, size of the restoration, and caries risk of the patient. J Evid Based Dent Pr 10:23–24. doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2009.11.009 CrossRef

Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C (2007) The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings from the New England Children’s Amalgam Trial. J Am Dent Assoc 138:763–772CrossRefPubMed

Gordan VV, Riley JL 3rd, Geraldeli S, Rindal DB, Qvist V, Fellows JL et al (2012) Repair or replacement of defective restorations by dentists in the Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Am Dent Assoc 143:593–601CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA (2007) A retrospective clinical study on longevity of posterior composite and amalgam restorations. Dent Mater 23:2–8. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.036 CrossRefPubMed

Palotie U, Vehkalahti MM (2012) Reasons for replacement of restorations: dentists’ perceptions. Acta Odontol Scand 70:485–490. doi:10.3109/00016357.2011.640274 CrossRefPubMed

Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitao J et al (2007) Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Assoc 138:775–783CrossRefPubMed

Opdam NJM, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U et al (2014) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res:943–949. doi:10.1177/0022034514544217

10.

Seemann R, Flury S, Pfefferkorn F, Lussi A, Noack MJ (2014) Restorative dentistry and restorative materials over the next 20 years: a Delphi survey. Dent Mater 30:442–448. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.013 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Nedeljkovic I, Teughels W, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt KL (2015) Is secondary caries with composites a material-based problem? Dent Mater 31:e247–e277. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.001 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Alshali RZ, Silikas N, Satterthwaite JD (2013) Degree of conversion of bulk-fill compared to conventional resin-composites at two time intervals. Dent Mater 29:e213–e217. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2013.05.011 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Jaffer F, Finer Y, Santerre JP (2002) Interactions between resin monomers and commercial composite resins with human saliva derived esterases. Biomaterials 23:1707–1719CrossRefPubMed

14.

Kawai K, Torii M, Tuschitani Y (1988) Effect of resin components on the growth of Streptococcus mutans. J Osaka Univ Dent Sch 28:161–170PubMed

15.

Hansel C, Leyhausen G, Mai UE, Geurtsen W (1998) Effects of various resin composite (co)monomers and extracts on two caries-associated micro-organisms in vitro. J Dent Res 77:60–67CrossRefPubMed

16.

Takahashi Y, Imazato S, Russell RR, Noiri Y, Ebisu S (2004) Influence of resin monomers on growth of oral streptococci. J Dent Res 83:302–306CrossRefPubMed

17.

Geurtsen W (2000) Biocompatibility of resin-modified filling materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 11:333–355CrossRefPubMed

18.

Goldberg M (2008) In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental resin components: a review. Clin Oral Investig 12:1–8. doi:10.1007/s00784-007-0162-8 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Lasfargues J-J, Colon P (2009) Odontologie conservatrice et restauratrice Tome 1 une approche médicale globale préface du Pr Guido Vanherle et du Pr Paul Lambrechts. Éd. CdP, Rueil-Malmaison

20.

Price RR, Viscount HB, Stanley MC, Leung KP (2007) Targeted profiling of oral bacteria in human saliva and in vitro biofilms with quantitative real-time PCR. Biofouling 23:203–213. doi:10.1080/08927010701251169 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Suzuki N, Nakano Y, Yoshida A, Yamashita Y, Kiyoura Y (2004) Real-time TaqMan PCR for quantifying oral bacteria during biofilm formation. J Clin Microbiol 42:3827–3830. doi:10.1128/JCM.42.8.3827-3830.2004 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Suzuki N, Yoshida A, Nakano Y (2005) Quantitative analysis of multi-species oral biofilms by TaqMan Real-Time PCR. Clin Med Res 3:176–185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Morillo JM, Lau L, Sanz M, Herrera D, Martin C, Silva A (2004) Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction based on single copy gene sequence for detection of periodontal pathogens. J Clin Periodontol 31:1054–1060. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.2004.00608.x CrossRefPubMed

24.

Yoshida A, Suzuki N, Nakano Y, Kawada M, Oho T, Koga T (2003) Development of a 5′ nuclease-based real-time PCR assay for quantitative detection of cariogenic dental pathogens Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sobrinus. J Clin Microbiol 41:4438–4441CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Seow WK, Lam JH, Tsang AK, Holcombe T, Bird PS (2009) Oral Streptococcus species in pre-term and full-term children—a longitudinal study. Int J Paediatr Dent 19:406–411. doi:10.1111/j.1365-263X.2009.01003.x CrossRefPubMed

26.

Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A et al (2007) Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 28:3757–3785. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.044 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Kreth J, Merritt J, Shi W, Qi F (2005) Competition and coexistence between Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sanguinis in the dental biofilm. J Bacteriol 187:7193–7203. doi:10.1128/JB.187.21.7193-7203.2005 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Kreth J, Zhang Y, Herzberg MC (2008) Streptococcal antagonism in oral biofilms: Streptococcus sanguinis and Streptococcus gordonii interference with Streptococcus mutans. J Bacteriol 190:4632–4640. doi:10.1128/JB.00276-08 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Gregson KS, Shih H, Gregory RL (2012) The impact of three strains of oral bacteria on the surface and mechanical properties of a dental resin material. Clin Oral Investig 16:1095–1103. doi:10.1007/s00784-011-0613-0 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Santos NC, Figueira-Coelho J, Martins-Silva J, Saldanha C (2003) Multidisciplinary utilization of dimethyl sulfoxide: pharmacological, cellular, and molecular aspects. Biochem Pharmacol 65:1035–1041CrossRefPubMed

31.

Van Landuyt KL, Nawrot T, Geebelen B, De Munck J, Snauwaert J, Yoshihara K et al (2011) How much do resin-based dental materials release? A meta-analytical approach. Dent Mater 27:723–747. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2011.05.001 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Santerre JP, Shajii L, Tsang H (1999) Biodegradation of commercial dental composites by cholesterol esterase. J Dent Res 78:1459–1468CrossRefPubMed

33.

Kraigsley AM, Tang K, Lippa KA, Howarter JA, Lin-Gibson S, Lin NJ (2012) Effect of polymer degree of conversion on Streptococcus mutans biofilms. Macromol Biosci 12:1706–1713. doi:10.1002/mabi.201200214 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Cvitkovitch DG, Li YH, Ellen RP (2003) Quorum sensing and biofilm formation in Streptococcal infections. J Clin Invest 112:1626–1632. doi:10.1172/JCI20430 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Giacaman RA, Torres S, Gomez Y, Munoz-Sandoval C, Kreth J (2015) Correlation of Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sanguinis colonization and ex vivo hydrogen peroxide production in carious lesion-free and high caries adults. Arch Oral Biol 60:154–159. doi:10.1016/j.archoralbio.2014.09.007 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Bourbia M, Ma D, Cvitkovitch DG, Santerre JP, Finer Y (2013) Cariogenic bacteria degrade dental resin composites and adhesives. J Dent Res 92:989–994CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: No evidence for the growth-stimulating effect of monomers on cariogenic Streptococci
Authors: Ivana Nedeljkovic
Kumiko Yoshihara
Jan De Munck
Wim Teughels
Bart Van Meerbeek
Kirsten L. Van Landuyt
Publication date: 01-06-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 5/2017
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1972-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

No evidence for the growth-stimulating effect of monomers on cariogenic Streptococci

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2017

Effects of air polishing and an amino acid buffered hypochlorite solution to dentin surfaces and periodontal ligament cell survival, attachment, and spreading

Do CAD/CAM dentures really release less monomer than conventional dentures?

Pain perception during debridement of hypersensitive teeth elicited by two ultrasonic scalers

Mini dental assessment: a simple screening test for non-dental staff

Dental caries, fluorosis, oral health determinants, and quality of life in adolescents

Radio-opaque polyethylene for personalized craniomaxillofacial implants