» Articles » PMID: 38347981

A Comparative In Vitro Analysis of Antimicrobial Effectiveness and Compressive Resilience in Chirata and Terminalia Arjuna Modified Glass Ionomer Cement

Overview
Journal Cureus
Date 2024 Feb 13
PMID 38347981
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Glass ionomer cements are commonly utilized in dental restorations due to their biocompatibility, strong chemical bond with dental tissues, and ability to resist tooth decay. However, their effectiveness can be compromised by the presence of persistent cavity-causing microorganisms. Therefore, it is essential to consider incorporating antibacterial agents into these restorative materials. Swertia chirayita (S. chirayita) and Terminalia arjuna (T. arjuna) are well-known for their rich composition of phytochemicals that can potentially inhibit the growth of bacteria. Hence, the current research is focused on modifying glass ionomer cement with Chirayita and T. arjuna extracts to enhance its antibacterial properties.

Aim: This research aims to determine the antimicrobial efficacy and compressive strength of glass ionomer cement modified with Chirayita and T. arjuna extracts.

Methodology: Plant extracts were prepared from both Chirayita and T. arjuna. The powder and liquid components of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) were mixed, followed by adding these extracts at three different concentrations. To assess antimicrobial properties, typical strains of Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus were employed to test both the modified GIC and unmodified GIC (used as a control). For Chirayita and T. arjuna-modified GIC, minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assays were conducted at three different concentrations. MIC was assessed at various time intervals ranging from 1 to 4 hours for modified and unmodified groups. Moreover, compressive strength was measured using cylindrical molds. The highest force exerted at the point of specimen fracture was recorded to calculate the compressive strength values in megapascal (MPa).

Results: The antimicrobial efficiency of Chirata and T. arjuna-modified GIC was evaluated using a MIC assay, indicating a statistically significant enhancement in antimicrobial potency against S. mutans and Lactobacillus within the modified groups in contrast to the control group (p<0.05). However, there were no notable changes in compressive strength when comparing the control group to the modified groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion: The antimicrobial effectiveness against S. mutans was observed to be greater in both T. arjuna and Chirayita-modified GIC. In the case of Lactobacillus, Chirayita-modified GIC exhibited more pronounced antimicrobial properties compared to T. arjuna. Importantly, both extracts did not alter the compressive strength of Conventional (unmodified) GIC. Hence, Chirayita-modified GIC appears to be a promising restorative material for combatting recurrent caries. Additional investigation is required to assess the material's stability over an extended period.

Citing Articles

Comparative drug release kinetics of mediated SeNPs NanoGel and ZnONPs NanoGel - An in-vitro study.

Vijayalakshmi R, Ambalavanan N, Rajeshkumar S, Mahendra J, Sudhakar U, Parameswari D J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2025; 15(1):199-204.

PMID: 39906887 PMC: 11791306. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2024.12.011.


Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Effectiveness and Compressive Strength in Neem and Lemongrass-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An In Vitro Study.

Jaikumar Ram A, Paulraj J, V K, Shanmugam R, Maiti S Cureus. 2024; 16(3):e56234.

PMID: 38618412 PMC: 11016290. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.56234.


A Comparative In Vitro Analysis of Antimicrobial Effectiveness and Compressive Strength of Ginger and Clove-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement.

Paulraj J, Pushparathna B, Maiti S, Sharma N, Shanmugam R Cureus. 2024; 16(3):e55964.

PMID: 38601383 PMC: 11006281. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.55964.


Investigating the Potential of Acacia nilotica-Enriched Glass Ionomer Cement: An Analysis of Antimicrobial Activity and Compressive Strength.

Paulraj J, T J, S Y, Shanmugam R, Maiti S Cureus. 2024; 16(2):e54821.

PMID: 38529417 PMC: 10962697. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.54821.


Comparative Analysis of Color Stability and Its Impact on Artificial Aging: An In Vitro Study of Bioactive Chitosan, Titanium, Zirconia, and Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticle-Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement Compared With Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement.

E D, Paulraj J, Maiti S, Shanmugam R Cureus. 2024; 16(2):e54517.

PMID: 38516425 PMC: 10955384. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.54517.

References
1.
Farret M, Martinelli de Lima E, Mota E, Oshima H, Barth V, de Oliveira S . Can we add chlorhexidine into glass ionomer cements for band cementation?. Angle Orthod. 2011; 81(3):496-502. PMC: 8923563. DOI: 10.2319/090310-518.1. View

2.
Paulraj J, Nagar P . Antimicrobial Efficacy of and Propolis-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: An Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2021; 13(5):457-462. PMC: 7887177. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1806. View

3.
Amend S, Seremidi K, Kloukos D, Bekes K, Frankenberger R, Gizani S . Clinical Effectiveness of Restorative Materials for the Restoration of Carious Primary Teeth: An Umbrella Review. J Clin Med. 2022; 11(12). PMC: 9225564. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11123490. View

4.
Malhotra S, Bhullar K, Kaur S, Malhotra M, Kaur R, Handa A . Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength and Flexural Strength of GC Gold Hybrid, GIC Conventional and Resin-modified Glass-ionomer Cement. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022; 14(Suppl 1):S214-S216. PMC: 9469278. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_134_22. View

5.
Innes N, Robertson M, Schwendicke F . Caries Excavation: Evidence Gaps. Monogr Oral Sci. 2018; 27:167-171. DOI: 10.1159/000487844. View