Home Page  

  • (pdf)
  • SciELO Analytics

  • SciELO

Brazilian Oral Research

 ISSN 1806-8324 ISSN 1807-3107



Original Research

Dental Materials

Antibacterial, chemical and physical properties of sealants with polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride

Isadora Martini GARCIA(a) 

Stéfani Becker RODRIGUES(a) 

Vicente Castelo Branco LEITUNE(a) 

Fabrício Mezzomo COLLARES(a) 

(a)Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS, School of Dentistry, Dental Materials Laboratory, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.


The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride (PHMGH) in the physico-chemical properties and antibacterial activity of an experimental resin sealant. An experimental resin sealant was formulated with 60 wt.% of bisphenol A glycol dimethacrylate and 40 wt.% of triethylene glycol dimethacrylate with a photoinitiator/co-initiator system. PHMGH was added at 0.5 (G0.5%), 1 (G1%), and 2 (G2%) wt.% and one group remained without PHMGH, used as control (GCTRL). The resin sealants were analyzed for degree of conversion (DC), Knoop hardness (KHN), and softening in solvent (ΔKHN), ultimate tensile strength (UTS), contact angle (θ) with water or α-bromonaphthalene, surface free energy (SFE), and antibacterial activity against Streptococcus mutans for biofilm formation and planktonic bacteria. There was no significant difference for DC (p > 0.05). The initial Knoop hardness ranged from 17.30 (±0.50) to 19.50 (± 0.45), with lower value for GCTRL (p < 0.05). All groups presented lower KHN after immersion in solvent (p < 0.05). The ΔKHN ranged from 47.22 (± 4.30) to 57.22 (± 5.42)%, without significant difference (p > 0.05). The UTS ranged from 54.72 (± 11.05) MPa to 60.46 (± 6.50) MPa, with lower value for G2% (p < 0.05). PHMGH groups presented no significant difference compared to GCTRL in θ (p > 0.05). G2% showed no difference in SFE compared to GCTRL (p > 0.05). The groups with PHMGH presented antibacterial activity against biofilm and planktonic bacteria, with higher antibacterial activity for higher PHMGH incorporation (p < 0.05). PHMGH provided antibacterial activity for all resin sealant groups and the addition up to 1 wt.% showed reliable physico-chemical properties, maintaining the caries-protective effect of the resin sealant over time.

Key words: Pit and Fissure Sealants; Methacrylates; Polymerization; Anti-Bacterial Agents


Caries recurrence is one of the major causes of restoration failure and restoration replacement in the long term.1 The incorporation of antibacterial agents in restorative materials have been studied, aiming to develop therapeutic materials with improved biological properties.2,3,4,5,6,7. Resin sealants for pits and fissures, applied to prevent new caries lesions8 and to arrest non-cavitated lesions,9 wear and detach over time10 with consequent biofilm formation around the sealant/enamel interface, increasing the risk of recurrent caries.11

To overcome this issue, the incorporation of fillers in resin sealants have been used to improve the acid- and caries-resistance of dental tissue. Sodium monofluorophosphate,12 nylon-6 and chitosan,13 fluoroboroaluminosilicate glass,14 and Bioglass 45S515,16 were already tested. In addition, enamel pre-treatments, such as 45S5 bioactive glass air-abrasion, done before sealant application, have been evaluated, improving enamel etchability and reducing microleakage.16 Nevertheless, the incorporation of inorganic fillers may negatively affect the rheological properties of resins,17 compromising polymer chain mobility and sealing properties,12 and decreasing the degree of conversion.18

Polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride (PHMGH) is an organic compound from guanidine family with cationic charge19 and broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria19,20,21 and fungi.22 Compared to other disinfectants, such as chlorhexidine digluconate, PHMGH presents higher antimicrobial activity against ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Actinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter species), which are clinically important antibiotic-resistant microorganisms.20 PHMGH has shown to be an effective sporicidal at low concentration, killing spores of Gram-positive bacteria at 0.52% (w/v) in 90 seconds and 0.36% (w/v) in three minutes.19 Therefore, it has been used as one of the major components of Akacid plus®, a disinfectant widely recommended for hospital and household use, besides its usage in the food and drug industries, due to its colorless and odorless qualities.19,21 However, there is no report about the use of PHMGH against Streptococcus mutans or in dental materials. Polyhexamethylene guanidine may have toxic effects, such as causing pulmonary fibrosis, when used in humidifier disinfectants.23 Other studies showed that PHMGH presented lower cytotoxic effects against human cells than commonly used antimicrobial agents such as chlorhexidine and quaternary ammonium compounds. 24

The incorporation of PHMGH into resin sealants could result in a material with antibacterial properties without affecting other properties.2,7 The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of PHMGH in the physico-chemical properties and antibacterial activity of an experimental resin sealant. The null hypothesis tested for the present study was that the addition of PHMGH does not influence the resin sealant properties.


Formulation of experimental resin sealants

Bisphenol A glycol dimethacrylate (BisGMA, Aldrich Chemical Company, St. Louis, Missouri, USA) at 60 wt.% and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate (TEGDMA, Aldrich Chemical Company, St. Louis, USA) at 40 wt.% were hand-mixed for 5 min, sonicated for 180 s and hand-mixed again for 5 min 25. A photoinitiator /co-initiator system composed by Camphorquinone (CQ, Aldrich Chemical Company, St. Louis, USA) and ethyl 4-dimethylaminobenzoate (EDAB, Aldrich Chemical Company, St. Louis, USA) added at 1 mol%, according to BisGMA and TEGDMA moles 13. Polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride (PHMGH), Figure 1, was incorporated at 0.5 (G0.5%), 1 (G1%), and 2 (G2%) wt.% in the resin sealant for test groups and one group, without PHMGH, was used as control (GCTRL). For experimental resin sealants formulation, all components were weighed with an analytical balance (AUW220D, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Kyoto, Japan). A light-emitting diode (Radii Cal, SDI, Australia) at 1200 mW/cm2 was used for photoactivation.

Figure 1 Polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride (PHMGH) representation. 

Degree of conversion

For degree of conversion (DC) assessment, three samples per group, n = 3, were evaluated by FTIR-ATR (Vetrex 70, Bruker Alpha, Ettingen, Germany). The resin sealants were dispensed onto the ATR crystal in a polyvinylsiloxane matrix with 1 mm thickness measured using a digital caliper. The uncured resin sealant was positioned on ATR in the polyvinylsiloxane matrix. The resin sealants were photoactivated for 50 s with the tip of the LED unit fixed by a device at 1 mm from the top of each specimen. The polymerized samples were then measured using a digital caliper. Data were evaluated with Opus 6.5 software (Bruker Optics, Ettlingen, Germany) with Blackman Haris 3-Term apodization, in 4000-400 cm-1 range with 64 scans at 4 cm-1 resolution. Spectra were obtained before and after polymerization and the DC was calculated considering the intensity of carbon-carbon double bond stretching vibration (peak at 1640 cm-1) using the aromatic carbon-carbon double bond stretching vibration (peak at 1610 cm-1) from the polymerized and unpolymerized samples as internal standard.26

Softening in solvent

The softening in solvent of experimental resin sealants was evaluated with five samples per group (n = 5, 1.0 mm of thickness x 4.0 mm of diameter) photoactivated for 30 s on each side. The samples were embedded in an acrylic resin to be polished (Model 3v, Arotec, Cotia, Brazil) with silicon carbide sandpapers (1000, 1200, and 2000-grit) and a felt disc saturated with 0.5-µm alumina suspension. After 24 h, five indentations (10 g for 5 s) were performed on each sample using a microhardness tester (HMV 2; Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan) to obtain the initial Knoop hardness number (KHN1). The samples were immersed in a solution of ethanol:water (70:30) for 2 h, washed with distilled water, and evaluated to obtain the final Knoop hardness number (KHN2). The percentage difference between KHN1 and KHN2 was calculated (ΔKHN%) for each group.27

Ultimate tensile strength

For the ultimate tensile strength (UTS), ten samples per group, n = 10, were prepared using a metallic matrix (hourglass-shaped with 8.0 mm long x 2.0 mm wide x 1.0 mm thickness) with a cross-sectional area of 1 mm2 at the constriction. The samples were photoactivated for 30 s on each side. After 24 h, the samples were fixed in a metallic device with cyanoacrylate resin and submitted to microtensile strength in a universal testing machine (EZ-SX Series, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min; the values were reported in MPa.28

Contact angle and surface free energy

For contact angle and surface free energy evaluation, three samples per group, n = 3, were prepared (1.0 mm of thickness x 5.0 mm of diameter) with photoactivation for 30 s on each side. The samples were analyzed by an optical tensiometer Theta (Biolin Scientific, Stockholm, Sweden) to evaluate the contact angle (θ) between the samples’ surface and a drop of distilled water (polar liquid) or α-bromonaphthalene (non-polar liquid). The surface free energy (SFE) was assessed by the sessile drop method. The drop out size was 3.0 μL, the drop rate was 2.0 μL/s, the displacement rate was 20.0 μL/s, and the speed dispersion of the liquids was 50 mm/min. The evaluation was performed during 20 s and the static θ between each drop and the polymer surface was measured at 10 s. The SFE was achieved using the Owens-Wendt-Rabel-Kaelble (OWRK) method as previously reported 3 and OneAttension software (Biolin Scientific, Stockholm, Sweden).

Evaluation of antibacterial activity against biofilm formation

To evaluate the antibacterial activity against biofilm formation, a direct contact inhibition analysis was performed using three samples (n = 3, 1.0 mm thickness x 4.0 mm diameter) per group, photoactivated for 30 s on each side. The samples were attached on the lid of a test plate and the assembly was submitted to hydrogen peroxide plasma (58%) sterilization for 48 min at 56°C. Each well of a 48-well plate contained 900 μL of brain-heart infusion broth (Aldrich Chemical Co., St. Louis, Missouri, USA), 1 wt.% sucrose, and 100 μL of Streptococcus mutans (NCTC 10449) at 107 CFU/mL suspension from an overnight broth culture. The 48-well plate was incubated with the assembly (lid and samples) at 37°C for 24h. Three wells with broth and Streptococcus mutans but without samples were used as negative control. The samples were removed from the lid and vortexed for 1 min in 1 mL of saline solution (0.9%) to be diluted until 10-6 dilution. Two 25-μL drops of each dilution were platted in brain-heart infusion agar Petri dishes and incubated at 37°C for 48h. The number of colony forming units (CFUs) was visually counted and transformed to log CFU/mL.4,29,30,31

Evaluation of antibacterial activity against planktonic bacteria

For the evaluation of antibacterial activity against planktonic bacteria, 100 µL of each well from the direct contact inhibition assay (n=3) were vortexed in 900 µL of saline solution (0.9%), diluted until 10-6 dilution, and platted in brain-heart infusion agar Petri dishes as previously described. The number of CFUs was visually counted and transformed to log CFU/mL.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SigmaPlot (version 12.0, Systat Software Inc., USA). Data distribution was evaluated by Shapiro-Wilk test. Paired t-test was used to compare KHN1 and KHN2 in each group at a level of 0.05 of significance. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc test were used to compare groups in softening in solvent, DC, UTS, contact angle, SFE, antibacterial activity against biofilm and against planktonic bacteria among groups at a level of 0.05 of significance.


Table 1 presents the DC, KHN1, KHN2, and ΔKHN% results for the experimental resin sealants. The values of DC ranged from 60.29 (± 3.50) to 63.04 (±0.65) %, without significant difference among groups (p > 0.05). The groups with PHMGH incorporation reached higher values of KHN1 compared to control (p < 0.05). All groups presented a decrease in Knoop hardness after 2 h immersed in an ethanolic solution (p < 0.05). The ΔKHN% ranged from 47.22 (± 4.30) to 57.22 (± 5.42) %, without significant difference among groups (p > 0.05).

Table 1 Mean and standard deviation of degree of conversion (DC) after 50 s of photoactivation, initial Knoop hardness number (KHN1), final Knoop hardness number (KHN2) and percentage of microhardness variation (ΔKHN%) of experimental resin sealants. 

Groups DC (%) KHN1 KHN2 ΔKHN (%)
GCTRL 61.69 (± 0.72)A 17.30 (± 0.50)Ba 7.40 (± 0.86)b 57.22 (± 5.42)A
G0.5% 60.73 (± 1.82)A 18.81 (± 0.90)Aa 9.60 (± 1.40)b 49.10 (± 7.20)A
G1% 60.29 (± 3.50)A 19.50 (± 0.45)Aa 10.30 (± 0.93)b 47.22 (± 4.30)A
G2% 63.04 (± 0.65)A 18.61 (± 0.73)Aa 9.00 (± 1.42)b 52.00 (± 6.32)A

Different capital letters indicate statistical difference in the same column (p < 0.05). Different small letters indicate statistical difference in the same row (p < 0.05). p-value of normality test of DC p = 0.343; KHN1 p = 0.219; KHN1 and KHN2 of GCTRL- p = 0.282; G0.5%- p = 0.739; G1%- p = 0.807; G2%- p = 0.319.

Table 2 presents the values of UTS, contact angle with water or α-bromonaphthalene, and SFE. The UTS ranged from 48.40 (± 11.00) to 60.46 (± 6.50) MPa, without significant difference up to 1 wt.% of PGMGH compared to GCTRL (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference for PHMGH groups compared to GCTRL for the contact angle with water (p > 0.05) and α-bromonaphthalene (p > 0.05). The SFE ranged from 46.82 (± 1.20) to 50.60 (± 1.23) mN/M, without significant difference between G2% and GCTRL (p > 0.05); lower values were found for G0.5% and G1% compared to control and G2% (p < 0.05), which did not differ between them (p > 0.05).

Table 2 Mean and standard deviation of ultimate tensile strength (UTS), contact angle (θ) with water and α-bromonaphtalene, and surface free energy (SFE) of experimental resin sealants. 

Groups UTS (MPa) Contact angle SFE (mN/M)

Water α-bromonaphtalene
GCTRL 60.46 (± 6.50)A 67.90 (± 6.03)AB 18.11 (± 6.33)A 50.00 (± 2.04)A
G0.5% 54.72 (± 11.05)AB 74.20 (± 4.54)A 19.80 (± 4.83)A 46.95 (± 1.83)B
G1% 57.43 (± 7.09)AB 74.80 (± 2.90)A 19.23 (± 2.80)A 46.82 (± 1.20)B
G2% 48.40 (± 11.00)B 64.80 (± 2.33)B 21.64 (± 7.10)A 50.60 (± 1.23)A

Different letters indicate statistical difference in the same column (p < 0.05). p-value of normality test of UTS p = 0.484; contact angle with water p = 0.478; contact angle with α-bromonaphtalene p = 0.356; surface free energy with water p = 0.664.

Table 3 shows the results of antibacterial activity against biofilm formation on polymerized samples and against planktonic bacteria. With the increase of PHMGH concentration, higher antibacterial activity against biofilm formation was found (p < 0.05). The evaluation in planktonic bacteria showed that the GCTRL presented no significant difference to the negative control (p > 0.05). G1% and G2% showed less planktonic bacteria than GCTRL and G0.5% (p < 0.05).

Table 3 Mean and standard deviation of direct contact inhibition assay in logarithmic transformation of colony forming units per milliliter (log CFU/mL) and planktonic bacteria inhibition assay in log CFU/mL. 

Groups Direct contact inhibition assay Planktonic bacteria inhibition assay
GCTRL 5.99 (± 0.06)A 7.15 (± 0.11)AB
G0.5% 5.69 (± 0.04)B 6.74 (± 0.35)B
G1% 4.57 (± 0.14)C 6.15 (± 0.03)C
G2% 2.06 (± 0.15)D 6.05 (± 0.14)C
Negative control - 7.32 (± 0.12)A

Different capital letters indicate statistically significant difference in the same column (p < 0.05).p-value of normality test of direct contact inhibition assay p = 0.499 and planktonic bacteria inhibition assay p = 0.407.


In the last major study about prevalence and incidence of oral health conditions, the 2015 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study, it was observed that untreated caries in permanent teeth affected more than 2.5 billion people (95% uncertainty interval (UI): 2.4–2.7 billion) and 573 million children, making caries the most prevalent disease in the world.32 In addition, in the last estimation for direct and indirect costs due to dental diseases, untreated caries was the cause of 12% of global productive losses and considered one of the major global public health challenges 32. Resin sealants are effective in preventing caries lesions.8,33 However, the rate of intact sealants decreases over time (73.3% after 5 years),34 negatively impacting their protective effect.11 In the present study, PHMGH was incorporated as an antibacterial agent in an experimental resin sealant. The addition of up to 1 wt.% PHMGH showed reliable physico-chemical properties and all PHMGH groups showed antibacterial activity against biofilm formation and planktonic bacteria of Streptococcus mutans. Thus, the null hypothesis proposed for the study was rejected.

The experimental resin sealants were evaluated regarding DC, determined as the conversion of unsaturated carbon-carbon double bonds in saturated bonds of monomers. High DC is associated with better mechanical properties26 and the addition of different compounds in polymers may decrease the DC by altering chain mobility,12 light transmission,18 or degree of functionality (number of carbon double bonds).26 PHMGH is a polymer with a short alkyl chain composed by seven carbon atoms with saturated bonds. There was no significant difference in the DC among groups even with lower degree of functionality in PHMGH groups (there was less C=C per volume in PHMGH groups compared to GCTRL). In addition, all groups achieved more than 60% DC, which is in accordance with the values of commercial resin sealants.35 PHMGH presents structural analogies with polymers and quaternary ammonium compounds, which have already been tested in dental resins, especially adhesive resins. Compounds such as 12-methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide,35 1,3,5-triacryloylhexahydro-1,3,5-triazine,7 2-methacryloyloxy ethyl trimethyl ammonium chloride, 2 and dimethylaminododecyl methacrylate36 generally present no influence in the DC at low concentrations (up to 10 wt.%, generally being tested up to 5 wt.%). The short alkyl chain of PHMGH contributes to a suitable DC due to the greater chain mobility of the base resin compared to resins with quaternary ammonium compounds with longer alkyl chain.37 Furthermore, the refractive index of PHMGH (poly (hexamethylene biguanide) hydrochloride -1.548638) is similar to the index of the co-monomer blend (mixture of BisGMA, TEGDMA, and HEMA - 1.47 to 1.59 (monomer) and 1.50–1.62 (polymer)18). Because of the similar refractive index between the base resin and the material incorporated, the light energy availability is less susceptible to reduction, which probably contributed to the similar DC among groups.39. This is an advantage of PHMGH over the incorporation of antibaterial oxides/inorganic fillers,18 which usually have different refractive index, decreasing the DC.25 PHMGH did not affect the DC regardless the concentration evaluated. Besides having great mechanical properties, the sealants incorporated with PHMGH should provide stability to the material over time, as high DC also decreases the leaching of uncured monomers from the polymer matrix, improving biocompatibility.40

Although high DC may indicate satisfactory physico-chemical properties,26 the evaluation of mechanical and stability properties after solvent storage are necessary. The UTS analysis indicated no significant difference up to 1 wt.% of PHMGH. With 2 wt.% of PHMGH powder, agglomerates may form, which are not well-bonded to the organic matrix, decreasing the mechanical properties.17 Agglomerates in polymers do not constrain the surrounding matrix of deforming under mechanical load,17 which may have led to the lower values for G2% compared to GCTRL. The lower concentrations of PHMGH promoted a better dispersion of the compound in the organic matrix, with less agglomeration of PHMGH, resulting in the non-difference among GCTRL, G0.5% and G1%. However, despite the lower UTS observed for G2%, there was no difference for softening in solvent among the experimental resin sealants, and PHMGH groups reached higher KHN1 values. PHMGH powder could be pressed into the softer matrix rather than being plastically deformed, leading to the higher values of KHN1. After ethanolic solution storage, all experimental resin sealants showed lower values of Knoop hardness. This can be explained by the higher interaction between the solvent molecules and polymer chains on the resin surface rather than the covalent bonds in the polymer.41 One could expect that the increase in PHMGH incorporation would increase ΔKHN due to the hydrochloride in its structure by increasing water sorption and solubility as occurred when hydrophilic monomers are incorporated in resins at higher concentration, increasing resin degradation.26 The addition of PHMGH did not increase the interaction with solvent molecules during immersion in the ethanolic solution and the high DC observed for all experimental resin sealants probably positively influenced these results.26 Thus, besides not having influenced the DC, the PHMGH incorporation probably did not negatively affect the crosslinking density,26 as there was no influence in the softening by the solvent regardless the concentration tested.

The contact angle and the SFE of polymers may also change due to the incorporation of fillers, as boron nitride nanotubes in dental adhesives,42 or different monomers, as quaternary alkylammonium in dental composites.43 A lower value of contact angle with water was obtained for G2% compared to G0.5% and G1%, with no significant differences between each PHMGH group and GCTRL. Higher amounts of PHMGH would lead to lower contact angle values compared to GCTRL due to PHMGH hydrophilicity.19 Also, there was a slightly but significant difference for SFE among groups, without significant difference between GCTRL and G2%. Previous studies indicate higher cell attachment in surfaces with higher wettability.44 This theme is controversial, since another research shows no linear correlation between these properties and bacterial adhesion,45 turning the antibacterial activity evaluation indispensable. Even with the results observed for surface properties, the hydrophilic character of PHMGH did not influence the stability after the storage in ethanol:water solution compared to GCTRL. The non-difference in the softening in solvent, associated with the high values observed for DC up to 2 wt.% and the non-difference for UTS up to 1 wt.% may assist in the preservation of the polymer against hydrolytic degradation over time.2,27,28

The experimental resin sealants with PHMGH were evaluated by direct contact inhibition and planktonic bacteria viability assays. The higher the PHMGH incorporation, the higher the antibacterial activity against biofilm formation on polymerized samples, with more than 60% of biofilm reduced with G2% compared to GCTRL. Dimethacrylates (TEGDMA, BisGMA and urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA)) commonly used for resin sealants composition do not present antibacterial activity.5 With the same purpose of antibacterial agents incorporation in adhesive systems,2,4,7 composite resins3 and glass ionomer cements,46 resin sealants with PHMGH could prevent bacterial attachment and biofilm formation at tooth/resin interface, where recurrent caries commonly occur, and act as an additional strategy against disease development. The planktonic bacteria inhibition assay showed no difference between GCTRL and G0.5%, while G1% and G2% showed lower values of planktonic bacteria compared to GCTRL and G0.5%. The decrease of planktonic bacteria in broth may be associated with the leaching of PHMGH from the polymer.47 It is also possible that the decrease of planktonic bacteria occurred due to the contact of the cells in broth with the surface of resin sealants,44 similar to a previous study with antibacterial monomers (quaternary ammonium compounds) that copolymerized with the base resin, inducing planktonic bacteria reduction in broth around the polymerized samples.2,7

The antibacterial activity of PHMGH observed in direct contact inhibition and planktonic bacteria viability assays occurred due to the increase of the cytoplasmic membrane permeability after adsorption and bonding to the negative charge of bacteria’s surface, leading to leakage of intracellular constituents and cell death.21 In addition to the membrane disorganization and pore formation,21 guanidine compounds have shown to affect DNA and cellular proteins in Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.21 The selective DNA binding between guanidine molecules and bacteria chromosomes48 differentiates the antibacterial action of guanidine compounds from classical quaternary ammonium compounds, which commonly act only in bacteria wall and membrane.49 Regarding human cells, a previous study investigated the cytotoxicity of antiseptics, including guanidine molecules (as polyhexamethylene biguanide (PHMB) and octenide dihydrochloride (OCT)), chlorhexidine digluconate, and cetylpyridinium chloride against human fibroblasts.24 Guanidine molecules showed low cytotoxicity and high antibacterial activity.24 However, it is suggested that polyhexamethylene guanidine may be associated to toxic effects, including pulmonary fibrosis, when used in humidifier disinfectants.23 Thus, the results of this study should be used with caution and more cytotoxic tests should be performed.

The development of restorative materials with antibacterial activity is desirable for the improvement of the therapeutic effect. The present study presented the formulation of a new resin sealant with PHMGH as an antibacterial agent with reliable physico-chemical properties. In this way, PHMGH may be an alternative for long-lasting caries prevention of resin sealants.


PHMGH provided antibacterial activity for all resin sealant groups and the addition up to 1 wt.% showed reliable physico-chemical properties, maintaining the caries-protective effect of the resin sealant over time.


This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001 (scholarship).


1. Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014 Oct;93(10):943-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514544217Links ]

2. Collares FM, Leitune VCB, Franken P, Parollo CF, Ogliari FA, Samuel SMW. Influence of addition of [2-(methacryloyloxy)ethyl]trimethylammonium chloride to an experimental adhesive. Braz Oral Res. 2017;31:e31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0031Links ]

3. Degrazia FW, Leitune VC, Garcia IM, Arthur RA, Samuel SM, Collares FM. Effect of silver nanoparticles on the physicochemical and antimicrobial properties of an orthodontic adhesive. J Appl Oral Sci. 2016 Jul-Aug;24(4):404-10. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720160154Links ]

4. Garcia IM, Leitune VC, Visioli F, Samuel SM, Collares FM. Influence of zinc oxide quantum dots in the antibacterial activity and cytotoxicity of an experimental adhesive resin. J Dent. 2018 Jun;73:57-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.003Links ]

5. Imazato S. Antibacterial properties of resin composites and dentin bonding systems. Dent Mater. 2003 Sep;19(6):449-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00102-1Links ]

6. Jung JH, Kim DH, Yoo KH, Yoon SY, Kim Y, Bae MK, et al. Dentin sealing and antibacterial effects of silver-doped bioactive glass/mesoporous silica nanocomposite: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Jan;23(1):253-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2432-zLinks ]

7. Schiroky PR, Leitune VC, Garcia IM, Ogliari FA, Samuel SM, Collares FM. Triazine compound as copolymerized antibacterial agent in adhesive resins. Braz Dent J. 2017 Mar-Apr;28(2):196-200. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201701346Links ]

8. Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Forss H, Walsh T, Nordblad A, Mäkelä M, Worthington HV. Pit and fissure sealants for preventing dental decay in permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul;7:CD001830. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub5Links ]

9. Holmgren C, Gaucher C, Decerle N, Doméjean S. Minimal intervention dentistry II: part 3. Management of non-cavitated (initial) occlusal caries lesions: non-invasive approaches through remineralisation and therapeutic sealants. Br Dent J. 2014 Mar;216(5):237-43. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.147Links ]

10. Khatri SG, Samuel SR, Acharya S, Patil S, Madan K. Retention of moisture-tolerant and conventional resin-based sealant in six- to nine-year-old children. Pediatr Dent. 2015 Jul-Aug;37(4):366-70. [ Links ]

11. Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention—a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013 Oct;8(10):e77103. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077103Links ]

12. Güçlü ZA, Dönmez N, Hurt AP, Coleman NJ. Characterisation and microleakage of a new hydrophilic fissure sealant - UltraSeal XT® hydro™. J Appl Oral Sci. 2016 Jul-Aug;24(4):344-51. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720160010Links ]

13. Hamilton MF, Otte AD, Gregory RL, Pinal R, Ferreira-Zandoná A, Bottino MC. Physicomechanical and antibacterial properties of experimental resin-based dental sealants modified with nylon-6 and chitosan nanofibers. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2015 Nov;103(8):1560-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.33342Links ]

14. Kaga M, Kakuda S, Ida Y, Toshima H, Hashimoto M, Endo K, et al. Inhibition of enamel demineralization by buffering effect of S-PRG filler-containing dental sealant. Eur J Oral Sci. 2014 Feb;122(1):78-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12107Links ]

15. Yang SY, Kwon JS, Kim KN, Kim KM. Enamel Surface with Pit and Fissure Sealant Containing 45S5 Bioactive Glass. J Dent Res. 2016 May;95(5):550-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515626116Links ]

16. Bagheri M, Pilecki P, Sauro S, Sherriff M, Watson TF, Hosey MT. An in vitro investigation of pre-treatment effects before fissure sealing. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017 Nov;27(6):514-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12290Links ]

17. Belli R, Kreppel S, Petschelt A, Hornberger H, Boccaccini AR, Lohbauer U. Strengthening of dental adhesives via particle reinforcement. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014 Sep;37:100-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2014.05.007Links ]

18. Leitune VC, Collares FM, Takimi A, de Lima GB, Petzhold CL, Bergmann CP, et al. Niobium pentoxide as a novel filler for dental adhesive resin. J Dent. 2013 Feb;41(2):106-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.04.022Links ]

19. Oulé MK, Quinn K, Dickman M, Bernier AM, Rondeau S, De Moissac D, et al. Akwaton, polyhexamethylene-guanidine hydrochloride-based sporicidal disinfectant: a novel tool to fight bacterial spores and nosocomial infections. J Med Microbiol. 2012 Oct;61(Pt 10):1421-7. https://doi.org/10.1099/jmm.0.047514-0Links ]

20. Zhou Z, Wei D, Lu Y. Polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride shows bactericidal advantages over chlorhexidine digluconate against ESKAPE bacteria. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2015 Mar-Apr;62(2):268-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/bab.1255Links ]

21. Zhou ZX, Wei DF, Guan Y, Zheng AN, Zhong JJ. Damage of Escherichia coli membrane by bactericidal agent polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride: micrographic evidences. J Appl Microbiol. 2010 Mar;108(3):898-907. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04482.xLinks ]

22. Choi H, Kim KJ, Lee DG. Antifungal activity of the cationic antimicrobial polymer-polyhexamethylene guanidine hydrochloride and its mode of action. Fungal Biol. 2017 Jan;121(1):53-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.funbio.2016.09.001Links ]

23. Park K. An analysis of a humidifier disinfectant case from a toxicological perspective. Environ Health Toxicol. 2016 Jul;31:e2016013. https://doi.org/10.5620/eht.e2016013Links ]

24. Müller G, Kramer A. Biocompatibility index of antiseptic agents by parallel assessment of antimicrobial activity and cellular cytotoxicity. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008 Jun;61(6):1281-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkn125Links ]

25. Garcia IM, Leitune VC, Ferreira CJ, Collares FM. Tantalum oxide as filler for dental adhesive resin. Dent Mater J. 2018 Nov;37(6):897-903. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-308Links ]

26. Collares FM, Ogliari FA, Zanchi CH, Petzhold CL, Piva E, Samuel SM. Influence of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate concentration on polymer network of adhesive resin. J Adhes Dent. 2011 Apr;13(2):125-9. [ Links ]

27. Rodrigues SB, Collares FM, Leitune VC, Schneider LF, Ogliari FA, Petzhold CL, et al. Influence of hydroxyethyl acrylamide addition to dental adhesive resin. Dent Mater. 2015 Dec;31(12):1579-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.10.005Links ]

28. Garcia IM, Leitune VC, Kist TL, Takimi A, Samuel SM, Collares FM. Quantum dots as nonagglomerated nanofillers for adhesive resins. J Dent Res. 2016 Nov;95(12):1401-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034516656838Links ]

29. Altmann AS, Collares FM, Leitune VC, Arthur RA, Takimi AS, Samuel SM. In vitro antibacterial and remineralizing effect of adhesive containing triazine and niobium pentoxide phosphate inverted glass. Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Jan;21(1):93-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1754-yLinks ]

30. Degrazia FW, Genari B, Leitune VC, Arthur RA, Luxan SA, Samuel SM, et al. Polymerisation, antibacterial and bioactivity properties of experimental orthodontic adhesives containing triclosan-loaded halloysite nanotubes. J Dent. 2018 Feb;69:77-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.11.002Links ]

31. Genari B, Leitune VC, Jornada DS, Camassola M, Arthur RA, Pohlmann AR, et al. Antimicrobial effect and physicochemical properties of an adhesive system containing nanocapsules. Dent Mater. 2017 Jun;33(6):735-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.04.001Links ]

32. Righolt AJ, Jevdjevic M, Marcenes W, Listl S. Global-, regional-, and country-level economic impacts of dental diseases in 2015. J Dent Res. 2018 May;97(5):501-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034517750572Links ]

33. Ahovuo-Saloranta A, Forss H, Walsh T, Hiiri A, Nordblad A, Mäkelä M, et al. Sealants for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Mar;3(3):CD001830. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001830.pub4Links ]

34. Kühnisch J, Mansmann U, Heinrich-Weltzien R, Hickel R. Longevity of materials for pit and fissure sealing—results from a meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2012 Mar;28(3):298-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.002Links ]

35. Borges BC, Bezerra GV, Mesquita JA, Pereira MR, Aguiar FH, Santos AJ, et al. Effect of irradiation times on the polymerization depth of contemporary fissure sealants with different opacities. Braz Oral Res. 2011 Mar-Apr;25(2):135-42. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242011000200007Links ]

36. Imazato S, Kinomoto Y, Tarumi H, Ebisu S, Tay FR. Antibacterial activity and bonding characteristics of an adhesive resin containing antibacterial monomer MDPB. Dent Mater. 2003 Jun;19(4):313-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00060-XLinks ]

37. Vidal ML, Rego GF, Viana GM, Cabral LM, Souza JP, Silikas N, et al. Physical and chemical properties of model composites containing quaternary ammonium methacrylates. Dent Mater. 2018 Jan;34(1):143-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.020Links ]

38. De Paula GF, Netto GI, Mattoso LHC. Physical and chemical characterization of poly(hexamethylene biguanide) hydrochloride. Polymers (Basel). 2011 Jun;3(2):928-41. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym3020928Links ]

39. Schulz H, Schimmoeller B, Pratsinis SE, Salz U, Bock T. Radiopaque dental adhesives: dispersion of flame-made Ta2O5/SiO2 nanoparticles in methacrylic matrices. J Dent. 2008 Aug;36(8):579-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.04.010Links ]

40. Goldberg M. In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental resin components: a review. Clin Oral Investig. 2008 Mar;12(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0162-8Links ]

41. Schneider LF, Moraes RR, Cavalcante LM, Sinhoreti MA, Correr-Sobrinho L, Consani S. Cross-link density evaluation through softening tests: effect of ethanol concentration. Dent Mater. 2008 Feb;24(2):199-203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.03.010Links ]

42. Degrazia FW, Leitune VC, Samuel SM, Collares FM. Boron nitride nanotubes as novel fillers for improving the properties of dental adhesives. J Dent. 2017 Jul;62:85-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.05.013Links ]

43. Buruiana T, Melinte V, Popa ID, Buruiana EC. New urethane oligodimethacrylates with quaternary alkylammonium for formulating dental composites. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2014 Apr;25(4):1183-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-014-5141-4Links ]

44. Liu Y, Zhao Q. Influence of surface energy of modified surfaces on bacterial adhesion. Biophys Chem. 2005 Aug;117(1):39-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpc.2005.04.015Links ]

45. Almaroof A, Niazi SA, Rojo L, Mannocci F, Deb S. Influence of a polymerizable eugenol derivative on the antibacterial activity and wettability of a resin composite for intracanal post cementation and core build-up restoration. Dent Mater. 2016 Jul;32(7):929-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.04.001Links ]

46. Hatunoğlu E, Oztürk F, Bilenler T, Aksakallı S, Simşek N. Antibacterial and mechanical properties of propolis added to glass ionomer cement. Angle Orthod. 2014 Mar;84(2):368-73. https://doi.org/10.2319/020413-101.1Links ]

47. van de Lagemaat M, Grotenhuis A, van de Belt-Gritter B, Roest S, Loontjens TJ, Busscher HJ, et al. Comparison of methods to evaluate bacterial contact-killing materials. Acta Biomater. 2017 Sep;59(59):139-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2017.06.042Links ]

48. Chindera K, Mahato M, Sharma AK, Horsley H, Kloc-Muniak K, Kamaruzzaman NF, et al. The antimicrobial polymer PHMB enters cells and selectively condenses bacterial chromosomes. Sci Rep. 2016 Mar;6(6):23121. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23121Links ]

49. Makvandi P, Jamaledin R, Jabbari M, Nikfarjam N, Borzacchiello A. Antibacterial quaternary ammonium compounds in dental materials: A systematic review. Dent Mater. 2018 Jun;34(6):851-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.014Links ]

Received: September 01, 2018; Revised: January 10, 2019; Accepted: January 28, 2019

Corresponding Author: Fabrício Mezzomo Collares. E-mail: fabricio.collares@ufrgs.br

Declaration of Interests: The authors certify that they have no commercial or associative interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript.

Creative Commons License  This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.