Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of Glass Ionomer Luting Cement with Chlorhexidine Diacetate

Year 2025, Volume: 35 Issue: 4, 326 - 330, 21.10.2025

Secil Ozkan Ata , Canan Akay , Emre Mumcu , Demet Erdönmez

https://doi.org/10.17567/currresdentsci.1433375

Abstract

Backrounds: This study aimed to evaluate the antimicrobial activities of glass ionomer luting cements modified with chlorhexidine diacetate.
Methods: Chlorhexidine diacetate (CXD) was incorporated into glass ionomer luting powder at 0 %, 1 %, 2 %, 3 % concentration and 120 round-shaped samples were prepared. Antimicrobial properties against Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans), Enterococcus faecalis(E. faecalis), and Candida albicans (C. albicans) were assessed with MTT [3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide] and Cristal Violet Assay. Biofilms on samples were also observed by Scanning Electron Microscopy. One-way ANOVA and Tukey Tests were used for statistical analysis.
Results: The highest amount of antimicrobial activity was found in samples with 3 % added CXD. The proportion of viable pathogens were reduced significantly with the addition of 2 % and 3 % CXD (p < 0.05). A noticeable reduction of S. mutans amount was seen with incorporation of 3 % CXD (p < 0.05). S. mutans and C. albicans were inhibited significantly by all the samples when compared to control groups.
Conclusions: Addition of 2 %- 3 % CXD to glass ionomer luting cements increased the antimicrobial properties. As, microorganisms’ growth rate was inhibited in 3% CXD group, CXD added glass ionomer luting cement can be suggested in endodontically treated teeth, in high caries-risk patients, also in immunocompromised patients.

Keywords

antimicrobial activity , glass ionomer cement , chlorhexidine Diacetate

References

• 1. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Crispin BJ. Dental luting agents: A review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;80(3):280-301.
• 2. Daugela P, Oziunas R, Zekonis G. Antibacterial potential of contemporary dental luting cements. Stomatologija. 2008;10(1):16-21.
• 3. Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW. A Review of Glass-Ionomer Cements for Clinical Dentistry. J Funct Biomater. 2016;7(3):16. doi:10.3390/jfb7030016
• 4. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials--fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater. 2007;23(3):343-362.
• 5. Chen J, Zhao Q, Peng J, Yang X, Yu D, Zhao W. Antibacterial and mechanical properties of reduced graphene-silver nanoparticle nanocomposite modified glass ionomer cements. J Dent. 2020;96:103332. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103332
• 6. Yesilyurt C, Er K, Tasdemir T, Buruk K, Celik D. Antibacterial activity and physical properties of glass-ionomer cements containing antibiotics. Oper Dent. 2009;34(1):18-23.
• 7. Tüzüner T, Dimkov A, Nicholson JW. The effect of antimicrobial additives on the properties of dental glass-ionomer cements: a review. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2019;5(1):9-21.
• 8. Maluf CV, Peroni LV, Menezes LR, Coutinho W, Lourenço EJV, Telles DM. Evaluation of the physical and antifungal effects of chlorhexidine diacetate incorporated into polymethyl methacrylate. J Appl Oral Sci. 2020;28:e20190039. doi:10.1590/1678-7757-2019-0039
• 9. Lila-Krasniqi ZD, Bajrami Halili R, Hamza V, Krasniqi S. Evaluation of Antimicrobial Effectiveness of Dental Cement Materials on Growth of Different Bacterial Strains. Med Sci Monit Basic Res. 2022;28:e937893. doi:10.12659/MSMBR.937893
• 10. Prada I, Micó-Muñoz P, Giner-Lluesma T, Micó-Martínez P, Collado-Castellano N, Manzano-Saiz A. Influence of microbiology on endodontic failure. Literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019;24(3):e364-e372.
• 11. Elbishari H, Silikas N, Satterthwaite JD. Is Deterioration of Surface Properties of Resin Composites Affected by Filler Size?. Int J Dent. 2020;2020:2875262. doi:10.1155/2020/2875262
• 12. Jin Y, Samaranayake LP, Samaranayake Y, Yip HK. Biofilm formation of Candida albicans is variably affected by saliva and dietary sugars. Arch Oral Biol. 2004;49(10):789-798.
• 13. He Z, Wang Q, Hu Y, et al. Use of the quorum sensing inhibitor furanone C-30 to interfere with biofilm formation by Streptococcus mutans and its luxS mutant strain. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2012;40(1):30-35.
• 14. Mittal S, Soni H, Sharma DK, Mittal K, Pathania V, Sharma S. Comparative evaluation of the antibacterial and physical properties of conventional glass ionomer cement containing chlorhexidine and antibiotics. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2015;5(4):268-275.
• 15. Duque C, Aida KL, Pereira JA, et al. In vitro and in vivo evaluations of glass-ionomer cement containing chlorhexidine for Atraumatic Restorative Treatment. J Appl Oral Sci. 2017;25(5):541-550.
• 16. Joshi JS, Roshan NM, Sakeenabi B, Poornima P, Nagaveni NB, Subbareddy VV. Inhibition of Residual Cariogenic Bacteria in Atraumatic Restorative Treatment by Chlorhexidine: Disinfection or Incorporation. Pediatr Dent. 2017;39(4):308-312.
• 17. Türkün LS, Türkün M, Ertuğrul F, Ateş M, Brugger S. Long-term antibacterial effects and physical properties of a chlorhexidine-containing glass ionomer cement. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2008;20(1):29-45.
• 18. Hu J, Du X, Huang C, Fu D, Ouyang X, Wang Y. Antibacterial and physical properties of EGCG-containing glass ionomer cements. J Dent. 2013;41(10):927-934.
• 19. Marti LM, Da Mata M, Ferraz-Santos B, Azevedo ER, Giro EM, Zuanon AC. Addition of chlorhexidine gluconate to a glass ionomer cement: a study on mechanical, physical and antibacterial properties. Braz Dent J. 2014;25(1):33-37.
• 20. Krzyściak W, Jurczak A, Kościelniak D, Bystrowska B, Skalniak A. The virulence of Streptococcus mutans and the ability to form biofilms. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014;33(4):499-515.
• 21. Davidovich E, Weiss E, Fuks AB, Beyth N. Surface antibacterial properties of glass ionomer cements used in atraumatic restorative treatment. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138(10):1347-1352.
• 22. Kwon TY, Hong SH, Kim YK, Kim KH. Antibacterial effects of 4-META/MMA-TBB resin containing chlorhexidine. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010;92(2):561-567.
• 23. Grönroos L, Mättö J, Saarela M, et al. Chlorhexidine susceptibilities of mutans streptococcal serotypes and ribotypes. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39(4):894-898.
• 24. Takahashi K, Yamanaka S. Induction of pluripotent stem cells from mouse embryonic and adult fibroblast cultures by defined factors. Cell. 2006;126(4):663-676.
• 25. Frencken JE, Imazato S, Toi C, et al. Antibacterial effect of chlorhexidine- containing glass ionomer cement in vivo: a pilot study. Caries Res. 2007;41(2):102-107.
• 26. Charannya S, Duraivel D, Padminee K, Poorni S, Nishanthine C, Srinivasan MR. Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Silver Nanoparticles and 2% Chlorhexidine Gluconate When Used Alone and in Combination Assessed Using Agar Diffusion Method: An In vitro Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(Suppl 2):S204-S209.
• 27. Hoszek A, Ericson D. In vitro fluoride release and the antibacterial effect of glass ionomers containing chlorhexidine gluconate. Oper Dent. 2008;33(6):696-701.
• 28. Du X, Huang X, Huang C, Frencken JE, Yang T. Inhibition of early biofilm formation by glass-ionomer incorporated with chlorhexidine in vivo: a pilot study. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(1):58-64.
• 29. Paes Leme AF, Koo H, Bellato CM, Bedi G, Cury JA. The role of sucrose in cariogenic dental biofilm formation--new insight. J Dent Res. 2006;85(10):878-887.
• 30. lla RK, Vineeth G, Kandi V, Swamy KNR, Vyas R, Narasimha Rao G. Evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of heat-cure denture base resin materials incorporated with silver nanoparticles. Int J Dent Mater. 2019;1(2):40-47.