Comparison between the effect of glass-ionomer and composite restorations on streptococcus mutans level in UAE children
Alsharqi, Maryam Abdulla Hamad
MetadataShow full item record
Introduction: Dental caries remains a major public health problem in spite of the advances in the dental care in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Epidemiological studies have provided evidence for the association of Streptococcus mutans with dental caries. Various treatment measures have been applied to impose an effect on Streptococcus mutans. It was reported that GIC can establish a cariostatic environment and reduce Streptococcus mutans levels through its ability to release fluoride; however, there has been a disparity regarding the anticariogenic effect of GIC restorations and the ability of the material to prevent the development of new carious lesions. Study objective: was to compare the effects of restorative treatment with glass-ionomer versus composite restorative materials on the oral count of Streptococcus mutans. Materials and Methods: the study included 20 subjects, 13 female and 7 male who were either caries free or with at least 3 carious primary teeth. The mean age was 6.72[plus or minus]2 years. The clinical indices utilized were the dmft and DMFT for primary and permanent teeth respectively. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the treatment groups, group 1 consisted of five subjects who were treated with GIC restorations (KetacTM Fil Plus) and group 2 consisted of eleven subjects who were treated with composite restorations (TPHR SpectrumR3) and SSCs (Primary Crowns, 3MTM). The four caries free subjects comprised the control group which was the third study group. Dentocult-SMR Strip Mutans test (Orion Diagnostica) was used for microbiological analysis of both saliva and plaque samples. Microbial samples were collected at baseline, after prophylaxis, after the completion of the treatment by one week, one month and three month. Results: There were no statistically significant reductions (P = 0.622) in the level of Streptociccus mutans CFU/ml in saliva and plaque samples when baseline test was compared with the 3 month test for both GIC and composite groups. However, there was a statistically significant drop (P = 0.035) in Streptococcus mutans CFU/ml in plaque samples within both groups at one month. In addition, the results demonstrated a statistically significant reduction (P= 0.010) in the level of Streptococcus mutans CFU/ml in plaque samples between the various time periods regardless of the treatment group. There was a statistically significant correlation between DMFT scores and age (P = 0.006) and a statistically significant correlation between the saliva and plaque Streptococcus mutans CFU/ml at all time periods except after prophylaxis. Conclusions: 1. None of the compared restorative materials were superior to the other in terms of causing a significant decrease in the level of Streptococcus mutans in both saliva and plaque samples. But both GIC and composite restorative materials were able to cause a statistically significant drop in Streptociccus mutans CFU/ml in plaque samples after one month. 2. Plaque samples showed a statistically significant reduction in Streptococcus mutans CFU/ml between the various time periods regardless of the treatment group. This conclusion might indicate that plaque is a more reliable method to study changes in bacterial counts in the oral cavity.
PLEASE NOTE: This work is protected by copyright. Downloading is restricted to the BU community: please click Download and log in with a valid BU account to access. If you are the author of this work and would like to make it publicly available, please contact email@example.com.Thesis (MSD) --Boston University Institute for Dental Research and Education, Dubai, 2012 (Pediatric Dentistry).Includes bibliographic references: leaves 77-112.
RightsThis work is protected by copyright. Downloading is restricted to the BU community. If you are the author of this work and would like to make it publicly available, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.