You are here

Home » Content

DİŞ HEKİMLİĞİNDE KULLANILAN ALTI FARKLI SİMANIN ANTIBAKTERIYEL ETKİLERİNİN İNCELENMESİ

THE EVALUATION OF ANTIBACTERIAL EFFECTS OF SIX DIFFERENT DENTAL CEMENTS

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2003

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
In this study the antibacterial action of commerical luLing cements carboxylatc (Durelon), resin (Duo cement kiL), zinc carhoxylate (Adhesor), zincpoly carhoxylate (Carbchem) and glass-ionomer cements (Ccramchem and Meron) were investigated in vitro agonist five microorganisms Esherichia colt, Erite roc occ LIS faecalis streptococcus sangius, streptococus aureus, S.mutans Disc diffision method was used to test the antibacterial action of cements. Cement specimens with a height of 2 mm and a diameter of 5 mm was prepared by a single operator (in an enviromental temperature of 22±1°C). The freshly prepared cements specimens were placed on the Brain Heart infissuon broth plates and incubated at 37oC for 24, 48 and 72 hours with a standard population of microorganisms. After the incubation period, the plate examined for evidence of microorganism growth inhibition. Glass ionomcr, resin cements and zincCarboxylate cements did not demonstrate any antibacterial cllects. Durelon (Carboxylatc cement) had a antibacterial elTeel against the tested all microorganism.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmada Dıırelon (karboksilat). Duo ccmct kîL (reziıı), Adhcsar (çinko karboksilat), Carbchcm (çinkopoli-karboksilat), Ccramchem ve Mcron (cam iyonomcr) siman-lanmıı, E.coli, Efaeealis, S.sangius, S .aureus vc S.ınutans bakterilere karşı gösterdikleri antibakteriel etki invito olarak incelenmiştir. Simanlann antibakteriel etkinliği disk di fi/.yon yöntemi kuşanılarak incelenmiştir. Tek bir araştırıcı tarafından, 2 mm. yüksekliğinde vc 5 mm çapında siman örnekler hazırlanmıştır (ortam ısısı 22±I°Q. Taze olarak hazırlanmış siman örnekler Brain-Hcart infizyun besi yerine yerleştirilmiş vc 37KC'de 24,48 vc 72 saat inkobasyona bırakılmıştır. İnkubasyon periodu sonunda, mikroorganizma büyümesinin engellenip engellenmediği gözlenmiştir. Cam iyonomer, rezin siman ve çinkopolikaıbnksilat siman herhangi bir antibakteriyel etki göstermemiştir. Dıırelon (Karboksilat siman) test edilen tüm mikroorganizmalara karşı antibakteriyel etki göstermiştir-
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-dis-hekimliginde-kullanilan-alti-farkli-simanin-antibakteriyel-etkilerinin-incelenmesi.pdf
  • 2
7-12
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Tobias RS. Antibacterial properties of denial restorative materials: a review. Jnt hndod J. 1988; 21: 155¬160.
2. Tobias RS, Browne RM, Wilson CA, Antibacterial activity of dental rcstorasivc materials. Int Hndad J. 1985; 18: 161-171.
3. Schwart/jnan B, Caputo AA, Schein B. Antibacterial action of dental cements, J Prost Dent. 1980; 43: 309¬312.
4. White SN, Furulchi R, Kyomen SM. Microleak-age through dentin after crown cementation. J Endod. 1995; 21: 9-12.
5. White SN, Sorcnscn JA, Kong SK, Caputo AA. Microlcakage of new crown and fixed partial denture luting agents. .1 Prosthct Dent. 1992; 67: 156-161.
BAYINDIR, ÇOLAK, BAYINDIR, YİĞİT
6. Browne PM. fobıas RS, Crombie K, Plant CG. Bacterial microlcakage and pul pal inflammation in experimental caııtes. Int Hndod Jf 1983; 16: 147-155.
7. Bergenholz G, Cox CF, Loesche W.I, Sycd SA. Bacterial leakage around dental restorations: Its effect on the pulp. J Oral Pathol. 1982; II: 439-450.
8. Branstroin M, Communications between the oral cavity and dental pulp associated with restorative treatment. Opcr Dent. 1984; 9: 57-68.
9.
Bayındı
r F, Duymuş Z, Yamkoğlu NT. Daimi yapıştırma işleminde kullanılan dört farklı simanın mikrosı-zıntısımn karşılaştırılması. Atatürk Üniv Diş hek Fak Dcrg. 2001; 11(1): 22-26.
10- lx>eschc WJ. Role of streptecoccus mutans in human dental decay. Microbial Rev. 1986; 50: 353-380.
11. Von Houte .1, i.opmars J, Kent R. The predominant cukitablc flora of sound and carious human root surface. J Dent Res. 1994;73: 1727-1734,
12. Fraga RC, Siqueira JF, Uzeda M. In vitro evaluation of antibacterial effects of photo-cured glass ionomer liners and dentin bonding agents during setting, J Prosthct Dent. 1996;76:483-486-
13. Barkhordar RA, Kcmpler D, Pelzner RR. Antimicrobial action of glass-ionomer lining cement on S .sanguis and S .mutans. Dent Mater. 1989; 5: 281-283.
14.
Ölme
z A, Ayhan II, Alaçam A, Kutlar S, Ruhi MZ. Farklı yapıştırma materyallerinin antibakteriyel etkileri. GU Diş Hek Fak Dcrg 13(2) 1996,93-97.
11
Atatürk Üniv.Diş Hck.Fak.Derg. Cilt. 13, Sayı:2, Sayfa:7-12,20Ü3
BAYINDIR, ÇOI AK, RAYINDIR, YİĞİT
15. Coogan MM, Crcaven PJ. Antibacterial proper-tics or eight denial cements. Lit Endod J. 1993 Nov;26 (6):355-36J-
16. Forsleıı L, solderling E. The alkaline and antibacterial effect of seven Ca(0H)2 Sincrs invitro. Acta Odoni Scarid. 1984; 42: 93-101.
17. Rıbeiro J, Ericsofi D. In vitro antibacterial effect of chlorbexideu added to glass ionomer cements. Stand J Dc-nl Res. 19911 99: 533-540.
18. Schwartzman B, Caputo AA. Enhancement of antimicrobial action of polycarbuxylatc cement. J Proslhet Dent. 1982; 48: 171-173.
19. Rabin İB, Hurst RW, Feary I'. Antibacterial ef-l eels of dental cements. J Dent Res, 57 (Special Issue),128 , 197S abstract No. 214.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com