Lack of antibacterial properties in resin-based composites (RBCs) is one of the flaws that cause the failure of filling clinically. Several agents have been incorporated to endow RBCs with antibacterial properties. In...Lack of antibacterial properties in resin-based composites (RBCs) is one of the flaws that cause the failure of filling clinically. Several agents have been incorporated to endow RBCs with antibacterial properties. In this review, we summarize the recent antibacterial agents between 2015 and 2020 using keywords of antibacterial or antimicrobial dental resin composites by PubMed databases. The most effective strategies are concerned with polymerizable monomers (50%), followed by filler particles (39%) and leachable agents (11%). A recent modification of the antibacterial agent is either by combining two agents from the same category or mixing agents from different categories in one. More than two methods were used in one study to assess antibacterial efficacy. The most common method was biofilm colony-forming units (CFUs) counting method (40%), followed by live/dead bacteria staining assay of biofilms (25%), metabolic activity assay of biofilms using MTT assay (16%), lactic acid production assay of biofilms (8%), agar diffusion test (8%), and other methods (3%) such as minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC).展开更多
文摘Lack of antibacterial properties in resin-based composites (RBCs) is one of the flaws that cause the failure of filling clinically. Several agents have been incorporated to endow RBCs with antibacterial properties. In this review, we summarize the recent antibacterial agents between 2015 and 2020 using keywords of antibacterial or antimicrobial dental resin composites by PubMed databases. The most effective strategies are concerned with polymerizable monomers (50%), followed by filler particles (39%) and leachable agents (11%). A recent modification of the antibacterial agent is either by combining two agents from the same category or mixing agents from different categories in one. More than two methods were used in one study to assess antibacterial efficacy. The most common method was biofilm colony-forming units (CFUs) counting method (40%), followed by live/dead bacteria staining assay of biofilms (25%), metabolic activity assay of biofilms using MTT assay (16%), lactic acid production assay of biofilms (8%), agar diffusion test (8%), and other methods (3%) such as minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC).
