Cariogenic Bacteria Degrade Dental Resin Composites and Adhesives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major reason for dental resin composite restoration replacement is related to secondary caries promoted by acid production from bacteria including Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans). We hypothesized that S. mutans has esterase activities that degrade dental resin composites and adhesives. Standardized specimens of resin composite (Z250), total-etch (Scotchbond Multipurpose, SB), and self-etch (Easybond, EB) adhesives were incubated with S. mutans UA159 or uninoculated culture medium (control) for up to 30 days. Quantification of the BisGMA-derived biodegradation by-product, bishydroxy-propoxy-phenyl-propane (BisHPPP), was performed by high-performance liquid chromatography. Surface analysis of the specimens was performed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). S. mutans was shown to have esterase activities in levels comparable with those found in human saliva. A trend of increasing BisHPPP release throughout the incubation period was observed for all materials and was more elevated in the presence of bacteria vs. control medium for EB and Z250, but not for SB (p < .05). SEM confirmed the increased degradation of all materials with S. mutans UA159 vs. control. S. mutans has esterase activities at levels that degrade resin composites and adhesives; degree of degradation was dependent on the material's chemical formulation. This finding suggests that the resin-dentin interface could be compromised by oral bacteria that contribute to the progression of secondary caries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".