Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download original text (EN)

Dental and Medical Problems

2020, vol. 57, nr 3, July-September, p. 239–246

doi: 10.17219/dmp/121973

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Copper nanoparticles as nanofillers in an adhesive resin system: An in vitro study

Nanocząsteczki miedzi jako nanowypełniacze w systemie wiążącym – badanie in vitro

Rafael Torres-Rosas1,D,E,F, Nayely Torres-Gómez2,3,B,C,E,F, René García-Contreras4,B,C,F, Rogelio José Scougall-Vilchis5,A,D,E,F, Luis Roberto Domínguez-Díaz3,6,B,F, Liliana Argueta-Figueroa7,A,B,D,F

1 Laboratory of Biomaterials, Center for Studies in Health and Disease Sciences, School of Dentistry, Benito Juárez Autonomous University of Oaxaca, Oaxaca de Juárez, Mexico

2 Technological Institute of Toluca, Metepec, Mexico

3 National Technological Institute of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

4 Laboratory of Interdisciplinary Research, Area of Nanostructures and Biomaterials, National School of Higher Studies León Unit, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico

5 Department of Orthodontics, Center for Research and Advanced Studies in Dentistry, Autonomous University of Mexico State, Mexico City, Mexico

6 Technological Institute of Oaxaca, Oaxaca de Juárez, Mexico

7 Cátedras CONACYT – School of Dentistry, Benito Juárez Autonomous University of Oaxaca, Oaxaca de Juárez, Mexico

Abstract

Background. The incorporation of an antibacterial agent into an adhesive could improve its clinical performance. Some nanoparticles (NPs), including copper nanoparticles (Cu NPs), display an antibacterial effect. Therefore, Cu NPs could act as a nanofiller when added to an adhesive.
Objectives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the antibacterial activity, cytotoxicity and shear bond strength (SBS) of an experimental dental adhesive with Cu NPs.
Material and Methods. Different concentrations (0.0050 wt%, 0.0075 wt% and 0.0100 wt%) of Cu NPs were added to the adhesive. The distribution of Cu NPs in the polymer matrix was observed based on transmission electron microscope (TEM) images. The antimicrobial activity of the adhesive + Cu NPs was evaluated with the agar disk diffusion test against Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans). The cytotoxicity assay was performed by means of the MTT (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) method with human pulp cells (HPC). Additionally, the SBS tests were carried out (n = 31) and the modes of fracture were registered. The vestibular and lingual surfaces of each tooth were randomly assigned to the study groups (group I – control adhesive; group II – adhesive + 0.0100 wt% Cu NPs). The samples were statistically analyzed (p ≤ 0.05).
Results. The adhesive + 0.0100 wt% Cu NPs showed inhibition zones against the strains under study that were similar to, or slightly smaller than, the halos produced by chlorhexidine (CHX) and specific drugs for each strain (30 μg of cefotaxime against S. mutans and S. aureus, and 1.25/3.75 μg of sulfamethoxazole/ trimethoprim against E. coli). The control adhesive was moderately cytotoxic (relative cell viability of 36.7 ±0.8%), being more cytotoxic than Cu NPs themselves (58.3 ±0.1%). A significantly higher SBS was obtained for the adhesive + 0.0100 wt% Cu NPs (6.038 ±2.95 MPa) than for the control group (3.278 ±1.75 MPa). The modes of fracture in group I were almost equally distributed between adhesive and cohesive failures whereas in group II, the failure was mainly cohesive.
Conclusion. The results of this study suggest that incorporating Cu NPs into an adhesive improves its SBS and provides it with antibacterial properties, without increasing its inherent cytotoxicity – 2 desirable characteristics for the dental adhesives of composites.

Key words

copper, nanoparticles, mechanical stress, antibacterial agents, dental bonding

Słowa kluczowe

miedź, nanocząsteczki, naprężenie mechaniczne, czynniki antybakteryjne, wiązanie dentystyczne

References (34)

  1. Beazoglou T, Eklund S, Heffley D, Meiers J, Brown LJ, Bailit H. Economic impact of regulating the use of amalgam restorations. Public Health Rep. 2007;122(5):657–663.
  2. Avoaka-Boni MC, Djolé SX, Kaboré WAD, Gnagne-Koffi YND, Koffi AFE. The causes of failure and the longevity of direct coronal restorations: A survey among dental surgeons of the town of Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire. J Conserv Dent. 2019;22(3):270–274.
  3. Askar H, Brouwer F, Lehmensiek M, Paris S, Schwendicke F. The association between loading of restorations and secondary caries lesions is moderated by the restoration material elasticity. J Dent. 2017;58:74–79.
  4. Spencer P, Ye Q, Park J, et al. Adhesive/dentin interface: The weak link in the composite restoration. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010;38(6):1989–2003.
  5. Cadenaro M, Pashley DH, Marchesi G, et al. Influence of chlorhexidine on the degree of conversion and E-modulus of experimental adhesive blends. Dent Mater. 2009;25(10):1269–1274.
  6. Campos KdPL, Viana GM, Cabral LM, et al. Self-cured resin modified by quaternary ammonium methacrylates and chlorhexidine: Cytotoxicity, antimicrobial, physical, and mechanical properties. Dent Mater. 2020;36(1):68–75.
  7. Jedrychowski JR, Caputo AA, Kerper S. Antibacterial and mechani­cal properties of restorative materials combined with chlorhexidines. J Oral Rehabil. 1983;10(5):373–381.
  8. Slavin YN, Asnis J, Häfeli UO, Bach H. Metal nanoparticles: Understanding the mechanisms behind antibacterial activity. J Nanobiotechnology. 2017;15(1):65.
  9. Komabayashi T, Spångberg LSW. Comparative analysis of the particle size and shape of commercially available mineral trioxide aggregates and Portland cement: A study with a flow particle image analyzer. J Endod. 2008;34(1):94–98.
  10. Li X, Robinson SM, Gupta A, et al. Functional gold nanoparticles as potent antimicrobial agents against multi-drug-resistant bacteria. ACS Nano. 2014;8(10):10682–10686.
  11. García‐Contreras R, Argueta‐Figueroa L, Mejía‐Rubalcava C, et al. Perspectives for the use of silver nanoparticles in dental practice. Int Dent J. 2011;61(6):297–301.
  12. Sirelkhatim A, Mahmud S, Seeni A, et al. Review on zinc oxide nanoparticles: Antibacterial activity and toxicity mechanism. Nanomicro Lett. 2015;7(3):219–242.
  13. Jeyaraman R, Jeyasubramanian K, Marikani A, Rajakumar G, Rahuman A. Synthesis and antimicrobial activity of copper nanoparticles. Mater Lett. 2012;71:114–116.
  14. Camacho-Flores BA, Martínez-Álvarez O, Arenas-Arrocena MC, et al. Copper: Synthesis techniques in nanoscale and powerful application as an antimicrobial agent. J Nanomater. 2015;2015:ID 415238
  15. Meghana S, Kabra P, Chakraborty S, Padmavathy N. Understanding the pathway of antibacterial activity of copper oxide nanoparticles. RSC Adv. 2015;5(16):12293–12299.
  16. Argueta-Figueroa L, Morales-Luckie RA, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Olea-Mejía OF. Synthesis, characterization and antibacterial activity of copper, nickel and bimetallic Cu–Ni nanoparticles for potential use in dental materials. Prog Nat Sci. 2014;24(4):321–328.
  17. Fallahzadeh F, Safarzadeh-Khosroshahi S, Atai M. Dentin bonding agent with improved bond strength to dentin through incorporation of sepiolite nanoparticles. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(6):e738–e742.
  18. Patel JB, Cockerill FR III, Bradford PA, et al. CLSI document M02-A12. In: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, ed. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk Susceptibility Tests; Approved Standard – Twelfth Edition. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute; 2015;35(1):72.
  19. Argueta-Figueroa L, Torres-Gómez N, García-Contreras R, et al. Hydrothermal synthesis of pyrrhotite (Fex−1S) nanoplates and their antibacterial, cytotoxic activity study. Prog Nat Sci. 2018;28(4):447–455.
  20. Hibino Y, Kuramochi K, Harashima A, et al. Correlation between the strength of glass ionomer cements and their bond strength to bovine teeth. Dent Mater J. 2004;23(4):656–660.
  21. Stanković A, Dimitrijević S, Uskoković D. Influence of size scale and morphology on antibacterial properties of ZnO powders hydrothermally synthesized using different surface stabilizing agents. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2013;102:21–28.
  22. Khodashenas B. The influential factors on antibacterial behaviour of copper and silver nanoparticles. Indian Chem Eng. 2016;58(3):224–239.
  23. Breschi L, Maravic T, Cunha SR, et al. Dentin bonding systems: From dentin collagen structure to bond preservation and clinical applications. Dent Mater. 2018;34(1):78–96.
  24. Gerth HUV, Dammaschke T, Züchner H, Schäfer E. Chemical ana­lysis and bonding reaction of RelyX Unicem and Bifix composites – a comparative study. Dent Mater. 2006;22(10):934–941.
  25. Pal S, Tak YK, Song JM. Does the antibacterial activity of silver nanoparticles depend on the shape of the nanoparticle? A study of the Gram-negative bacterium Escherichia coli. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(6):1712–1720.
  26. Tyas MJ, Burrow MF. Adhesive restorative materials: A review. Aust Dent J. 2004;49(3):112–121;quiz 154.
  27. Silva e Souza MH Jr., Carneiro KGK, Lobato MF, de Souza S, Silva e Souza PdAR, de Góes MF. Adhesive systems: Important aspects related to their composition and clinical use. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010;18(3):207–214.
  28. Vaidyanathan J, Vaidyanathan TK, Yadav P, Linaras CE. Collagen–ligand interaction in dentinal adhesion: Computer visualization and analysis. Biomaterials. 2001;22(21):2911–2920.
  29. Cadenaro M, Maravic T, Comba A, et al. The role of polymerization in adhesive dentistry. Dent Mater. 2019;35(1):e1–e22.
  30. Argueta-Figueroa L, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Morales-Luckie RA, Olea-Mejia OF. An evaluation of the antibacterial properties and shear bond strength of copper nanoparticles as a nanofiller in orthodontic adhesive. Aust Orthod J. 2015;31(1):42–48.
  31. Prakash J, Pivin JC, Swart HC. Noble metal nanoparticles embedding into polymeric materials: From fundamentals to applications. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 2015;226(Pt B):187–202.
  32. Vaidyanathan TK, Vaidyanathan J. Recent advances in the theory and mechanism of adhesive resin bonding to dentin: A critical review. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009;88(2):558–578.
  33. Armstrong S, Breschi L, Özcan M, Pfefferkorn F, Ferrari M, Van Meerbeek B. Academy of Dental Materials guidance on in vitro testing of dental composite bonding effectiveness to dentin/enamel using micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) approach. Dent Mater. 2017;33(2):133–143.
  34. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, et al. Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes. Dent Mater. 2010;26(2):e100–e121.