Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2020; 14(01): 077-084
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1702255
Original Article

In Vivo Biocompatibility, Mechanical, and Antibacterial Properties of Cements Modified with Propolis in Different Concentrations

Izaura Helena Chaves de Meneses
1   Department of Clinical and Social Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil
,
Gêisa Aiane de Morais Sampaio
1   Department of Clinical and Social Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil
,
Fabiola Galbiatti de Carvalho
3   Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil
,
Hugo Lemes Carlo
4   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil
,
Eliseu Aldrighi Münchow
4   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil
,
Matheus Melo Pithon
2   Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
5   Department of Orthodontics, State University of the Southwest of Bahia, Jéquie, Bahia, Brazil
,
Polliana Muniz Alves
6   Department of Pathology, Dental School, State University of Paraíba, Campina Grande, Paraíba, Brazil
,
Rogério Lacerda-Santos
2   Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitária, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
3   Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The focus of this triple-blind randomized study was to evaluate the mechanical properties, antibacterial effect, and in vivo biocompatibility of glass ionomer cements (GICs) modified with ethanolic extracts of propolis (EEP).

Materials and Methods For biocompatibility tests, 135 male Wistar rats were used and divided into nine groups: Group C (control, polyethylene), Groups M, M10, M25, M50 (Meron; conventional, and modified with 10%, 25%, 50% EEP, respectively), Groups KC, KC10, KC25, KC50 (Ketac Cem; conventional, and modified with 10%, 25%, 50% EEP, respectively). The tissues were analyzed under an optical microscope for different cellular events in different time intervals. Shear bond strength test (SBST) on cementation of metal matrices (n = 10, per group), adhesive remnant index (ARI) in bovine incisors (n = 10, per group), and antibacterial properties by the agar diffusion test (n = 15, per group) were analyzed.

Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed by Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Dunn, and one-way analysis of variance test followed by Tukey’s test (p < 0.5).

Results Morphological evaluation demonstrated intense inflammatory infiltrate in Groups M10 and KC10 in the time intervals of 7 (p = 0.001) and 15 (p = 0.006) days. Multinucleated giant cells were shown to be more present in Group M1, with statistical difference from Control and KC50 Groups in the time interval of 7 days (p = 0.033). The SBST showed no statistical significance among the groups (p > 0.05). Antibacterial property showed a statistically significant difference between Meron and Meron 50%-EEP Groups, and between Ketac and Ketac 50%-EPP Groups (p = 0.001).

Conclusions The intensity of histological changes resulting from the cements was shown to be inversely proportional to the concentration of propolis added; Ketac 50%-EPP was the concentration that had the most favorable biocompatibility results. Addition of EEP to GIC did not negatively change the SBST and ARI. Antibacterial property demonstrated a concentration-dependent effect.

Keywords

propolis - histocompatibility - orthodontics - glass ionomer cements


Publication History

Article published online:
13 March 2020

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Enan ET, Hammad SM. Microleakage under orthodontic bands cemented with nano-hydroxyapatite-modified glass ionomer. Angle Orthod 2013; 83 (06) 981-986
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Santos RL, Moura Mde F, Carvalho FG, Guênes GM, Alves PM, Pithon MM. Histological analysis of biocompatibility of ionomer cements with an acid-base reaction. Braz Oral Res 2014; 28 (01) 1-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ebaya MM, Ali AI, Mahmoud SH. Evaluation of marginal adaptation and microleakage of three glass ionomer-based Class V restorations: in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (04) 599-606
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Moheet IA, Luddin N, Rahman IA, Kannan TP, Nik Abd Ghani NR, Masudi SM. Modifications of glass ionomer cement powder by addition of recently fabricated nano-fillers and their effect on the properties: a review. Eur J Dent 2019; 13 (03) 470-477
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hatunoğlu E, Oztürk F, Bilenler T, Aksakallı S, Simşek N. Antibacterial and mechanical properties of propolis added to glass ionomer cement. Angle Orthod 2014; 84 (02) 368-373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Akao Y, Maruyama H, Matsumoto K. et al. Cell growth inhibitory effect of cinnamic acid derivatives from propolis on human tumor cell lines. Biol Pharm Bull 2003; 26 (07) 1057-1059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Jafarzadeh Kashi TS, Kasra Kermanshahi R, Erfan M, Vahid Dastjerdi E, Rezaei Y, Tabatabaei FS. Evaluating the in-vitro antibacterial effect of Iranian propolis on oral microorganisms. Iran J Pharm Res 2011; 10 (02) 363-368
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Schnitzler P, Neuner A, Nolkemper S. et al. Antiviral activity and mode of action of propolis extracts and selected compounds. Phytother Res 2010; 24 (Suppl. 01) S20-S28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Silici S, Koç NA, Ayangil D, Cankaya S. Antifungal activities of propolis collected by different races of honeybees against yeasts isolated from patients with superficial mycoses. J Pharmacol Sci 2005; 99 (01) 39-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Esmeraldo MR, Carvalho MG, Carvalho RA, Lima RdeF, Costa EM. Inflammatory effect of green propolis on dental pulp in rats. Braz Oral Res 2013; 27 (05) 417-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Ferreira FB, Torres SA, Rosa OP. et al. Antimicrobial effect of propolis and other substances against selected endodontic pathogens. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007; 104 (05) 709-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Topcuoglu N, Ozan F, Ozyurt M, Kulekci G. In vitro antibacterial effects of glass-ionomer cement containing ethanolic extract of propolis on Streptococcus mutans. Eur J Dent 2012; 6 (04) 428-433
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Al-Shaher A, Wallace J, Agarwal S, Bretz W, Baugh D. Effect of propolis on human fibroblasts from the pulp and periodontal ligament. J Endod 2004; 30 (05) 359-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Elgamily H, Ghallab O, El-Sayed H, Nasr M. Antibacterial potency and fluoride release of a glass ionomer restorative material containing different concentrations of natural and chemical products: an in-vitro comparative study. J Clin Exp Dent 2018; 10 (04) e312-e320
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sabir A, Sumidarti A. Interleukin-6 expression on inflamed rat dental pulp tissue after capped with Trigona sp. propolis from south Sulawesi, Indonesia. Saudi J Biol Sci 2017; 24 (05) 1034-1037
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 dos Santos RL, de Sampaio GA, de Carvalho FG, Pithon MM, Guênes GM, Alves PM. Influence of degree of conversion on the biocompatibility of different composites in vivo. J Adhes Dent 2014; 16 (01) 15-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Eliades T. Orthodontic materials research and applications: part 2. Current status and projected future developments in materials and biocompatibility. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131 (02) 253-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gonçalves TS, de Menezes LM, Ribeiro LG, Lindholz CG, Medina-Silva R. Differences of cytotoxicity of orthodontic bands assessed by survival tests in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. BioMed Res Int 2014; 2014: 143283
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Lacerda-Santos R, Sampaio GA, Moura Mde F. et al. Effect of different concentrations of chlorhexidine in glass-ionomer cements on in vivo biocompatibility. J Adhes Dent 2016; 18 (04) 325-330
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Farret MM, Lima EM, Mota EG. et al. Assessment of the mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements for orthodontic cementation. Dental Press J Orthod 2012; 17 (06) 154-159
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wilson AD. Developments in glass-ionomer cements. Int J Prosthodont 1989; 2 (05) 438-446
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Henn S, Nedel F, de Carvalho RV. et al. Characterization of an antimicrobial dental resin adhesive containing zinc methacrylate. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2011; 22 (08) 1797-1802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Seidenari S, Giusti F, Pepe P, Mantovani L. Contact sensitization in 1094 children undergoing patch testing over a 7-year period. Pediatr Dermatol 2005; 22 (01) 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Duailibe SA, Gonçalves AG, Ahid FJ. Effect of a propolis extract on Streptococcus mutans counts in vivo. J Appl Oral Sci 2007; 15 (05) 420-423
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lacerda-Santos R, Roberto BMS, de Siqueira Nunes B, Carvalho FG, Dos Santos A, Dantas AFM. Histological analysis of biocompatibility of different surgical adhesives in subcutaneous tissue. Microsc Res Tech 2019; 82 (07) 1184-1190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pithon MM, dos Santos RL, Oliveira MV. et al. Evaluation of the shear bond strength of two composites bonded to conditioned surface with self-etching primer. Dental Press J Orthod 2011; 16 (02) 94-99
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Farret MM, de Lima EM, Mota EG, Oshima HM, Barth V, de Oliveira SD. Can we add chlorhexidine into glass ionomer cements for band cementation?. Angle Orthod 2011; 81 (03) 496-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984; 85 (04) 333-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tipoe GL, Leung TM, Hung MW, Fung ML. Green tea polyphenols as an anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory agent for cardiovascular protection. Cardiovasc Hematol Disord Drug Targets 2007; 7 (02) 135-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lo CY, Hsiao WT, Chen XY. Efficiency of trapping methylglyoxal by phenols and phenolic acids. J Food Sci 2011; 76 (03) H90-H96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Zanata RL, Magalhães AC, Lauris JR, Atta MT, Wang L, Navarro MF. Microhardness and chemical analysis of high-viscous glass-ionomer cement after 10 years of clinical service as ART restorations. J Dent 2011; 39 (12) 834-840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 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 (01) 29-44, discussion 45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Razak FA, Rahim ZH. The anti-adherence effect of Piper betle and Psidium guajava extracts on the adhesion of early settlers in dental plaque to saliva-coated glass surfaces. J Oral Sci 2003; 45 (04) 201-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Troca VB, Fernandes KB, Terrile AE, Marcucci MC, Andrade FB, Wang L. Effect of green propolis addition to physical mechanical properties of glass ionomer cements. J Appl Oral Sci 2011; 19 (02) 100-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Wagh VD. Propolis: a wonder bees product and its pharmacological potentials. Adv Pharmacol Sci 2013; 2013: 308249
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Meto A, Meto A, Bimbari B, Shytaj K, Özcan M. Anti-inflammatory and regenerative effects of Albanian propolis in experimental vital amputations. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2016; 24 (03) 145-151
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Zare Jahromi M, Ranjbarian P, Shiravi S. Cytotoxicity evaluation of Iranian propolis and calcium hydroxide on dental pulp fibroblasts. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2014; 8 (03) 130-133
    Google Scholar