{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03419452887537994, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009878419452887538, 'mean_word_length': 5.552238805970149, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Antibacterial activity of glass-ionomer restorative cements and polyacid modified composite resin against cariogenic bacteria.

The dental plaque harbours a diverse range of bacteria such as Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguis, Streptococcus sobrinus, Lactobacillus spp, Actinomyces spp. etc, embedded in a matrix of polymers of bacterial and salivary origin. Therapeutic procedures used in the treatment of caries do not always eliminate all the microorganisms in the residual tissues, leading to development of recurring caries and frequent cause of replacement of restorative materials. We compared the in vitro antibacterial activity of three glass­ ionomer cements Fuji II (GC Int. Corp.), Vitremer (3M Dental), Miracle Mix (GC Int. Corp.) and a polyacid modified composite resin (compomer) restorative cement Dyract (Densply DeTrey) against Streptococcus mutans (ATCC 25175) and Streptococcus sanguis (ATCC 10556) using BHI agar plate diffusion assay. Chlorhexidine (0.2%) was used as the positive control and sterile isotonic saline was used as negative control. All three glass-ionomers exhibited antibacterial activity. Vitremer showed the maximum activity, followed by Fuji II and Miracle Mix. The primer component of the compomer showed activity whereas Dyract failed to show any activity (Table).