Surface antibacterial properties of compomers.

S. Matalon*, E. I. Weiss, N. Gozaly, H. Slutzky

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


AIM: This was to evaluate the antibacterial properties of four different compomers, using direct contact test (DCT) and agar diffusion test (ADT). Compomers (Polyacid Modified Composite Resin) form a group of dental restorative materials which were developed in order to improve conventional glass-ionomer and are widely used by pediatric dentists in primary dentition. Microorganisms captured under restorations or penetrating through the micro-gap at the tooth-restoration interface are the cause of secondary caries and pulpal pathology. METHODS: For the DCT, 8 samples of Freedom (SDI), F2000 (3M-ESPE), Dyract (Dentsply) and Hytac Hplitip (3M-ESPE) were placed on the sidewalls of wells in 96 microtiter plate. After polymerization, freshly grown streptococcus mutans cells (1x10(6)) were placed on the surface of each sample for one hour at 37 degrees C, fresh media was then added to each well and bacterial growth was followed for 16 hours by temperature controlled spectrophotometer. Similarly prepared samples were aged in phosphate buffered saline for 1, or 7 days and the DCT was repeated. The ADT was performed by placing samples in uniform wells punched in agar plates. RESULTS: In the DCT, freshly polymerized samples of F2000 showed the most potent antibacterial properties, while those of Hytac Hplitip showed moderate antibacterial phenomena. Dyract and Freedom did not show any antibacterial activity relative to the control material. None of the four aged materials showed antibacterial activity in the DCT after 1 or 7 days. In the ADT the halo in the bacterial lawn was measured after 48 hours and only F2000 demonstrated an inhibition zone of 2.15+/-0.3 mm. Statistics. Two way ANOVA indicated a significant difference in the growth rate of bacteria placed both on the different compomers (P<0.001) and in different tested time points (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: None of the compomers tested provided significant long term antibacterial activity.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)136-141
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry
Issue number3
StatePublished - 2006


Dive into the research topics of 'Surface antibacterial properties of compomers.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this