Surface roughness and Streptococcus mutans adhesion on surface sealant agent coupled interim crown materials after dynamic loading

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

With the application of surface sealant agents, smooth surfaces can be achieved in a shorter time when compared with conventional polishing. However, studies on the performance of these agents against chewing forces are not many. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the surface roughness and Streptococcus mutans adhesion on surface sealent coupled interim prosthetic materials after chewing simulation.

Methods

One hundred and twelve specimens were fabricated from two poly(methyl methacrylate) (Tab 2000, Dentalon Plus) and two bis-acryl (Tempofit, Protemp 4) interim crown materials and divided into 4 groups (n = 7) according to applied surface treatment: conventional polishing (control) and 3 surface sealant (Palaseal, Optiglaze, Biscover) coupling methods. The surface roughness values (R _a) were measured with a profilometer before (Ra0) and after aging through dynamic loading in a multifunctional chewing simulator for 10,000 cycles at 50 N load combined with integral thermocycling (between 5 and 55 °C) (Ra1). Specimens were incubated with Streptococcus mutans suspension and the total number of adherent bacteria was calculated by multiplying the counted bacterial colonies with the dilution coefficient.

Results

Surface sealant agent application significantly decreased the surface roughness compared with conventionally polished specimens, except for Optiglaze or BisCover LV applied Protemp 4 and Palaseal or Biscover LV applied Tempofit. Surface roughness after dynamic loading showed a statistically significant increase in all groups, except for the control groups of Tab 2000 and Protemp 4. A positive correlation was found between surface roughness values of interim prosthodontic materials and the quantitiy of Streptococcus Mutans.

Conclusions

Even though surface sealant agent application significantly decreased the surface roughness compared with conventionally polished specimens, dynamic loading significantly increased the surface roughness of all surface sealant coupled materials. The R _a values of all test groups were higher than the plaque accumulation threshold (0.20 µm). Streptococcus mutans adhered more on rougher surfaces.

Related collections

Most cited references 36

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature.

Curd M.L. Bollenl, Paul Lambrechts, Marc Quirynen (1997)

The roughness of intraoral hard surfaces can influence bacterial plague retention. The present review evaluates the initial surface roughness of several intraoral hard materials, as well as changes in this surface roughness as a consequence of different treatment modalities. Articles found through Medline searches were included in this review if they met the following criteria: 1) stated threshold surface roughness values and reputed change in surface roughness due to different manipulation techniques; or 2) included standardized surface conditions that could be compared to the treated surface. Recently, some in vivo studies suggested a threshold surface roughness for bacterial retention (Ra = 0.2 micron) below which no further reduction in bacterial accumulation could be expected. An increase in surface roughness above this threshold roughness, however, resulted in a simultaneous increase in plaque accumulation, thereby increasing the risk for both caries and periodontal inflammation. The initial surface roughness of different dental materials (e.g., teeth, abutments, gold, amalgam, acrylic resin, resin composite, glass ionomer or compomer and ceramics) and the effect of different treatment modalities (e.g., polishing, scaling, brushing, condensing, glazing or finishing) on this initial surface roughness were analyzed and compared to the threshold surface roughness of 0.2 micron. The microbiological effects of these treatment modalities, if reported, are also discussed and compared to recent in vivo data. Based on this review, the range in surface roughness of different intraoral hard surfaces was found to be wide, and the impact of dental treatments on the surface roughness is material-dependent. Some clinical techniques result in a very smooth surface (compressing of composites against matrices), whereas others made the surface rather rough (application of hand instruments on gold). These findings indicated that every dental material needs its own treatment modality in order to obtain and maintain a surface as smooth as possible.

0 comments Cited 151 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis.

W Papaioanno, J. W. A. M. den Teuling, E Schepers … (1996)

Bacterial adhesion to intra-oral, hard surfaces is firmly influenced by the surface roughness to these structures. Previous studies showed a remarkable higher subgingival bacterial load on rough surfaces when compared to smooth sites. More recently, the additional effect of a further smoothening of intra-oral hard surfaces on clinical and microbiological parameters was examined in a short-term experiment. The results indicated that a reduction in surface roughness below R(a) = 0.2 microns, the so-called "thresholds R(a)", had no further effect on the quantitative/qualitative microbiological adhesion or colonisation, neither supra- nor subgingivally. This study aims to examine the long-term effects of smoothening intra-oral hard transgingival surfaces. In 6 patients expecting an overdenture in the lower jaw, supported by endosseus titanium implants, 2 different abutments (transmucosal part of the implant): a standard machined titanium (R(a) = 0.2 microns) and one highly polished and made of a ceramic material (R(a) = 0.06 microns) were randomly installed. After 3 months of intra-oral exposure, supra- and subgingival plaque samples from both abutments were compared with each other by means of differential phase-contrast microscopy (DPCM). Clinical periodontal parameters (probing depth, gingival recession, bleeding upon probing and Periotest-value) were recorded around each abutment. After 12 months, the supra- and subgingival samples were additionally cultured in aerobic, CO2-enriched and anaerobic conditions. The same clinical parameters as at the 3-month interval were recorded after 12 months. At 3 months, spirochetes and motile organisms were only detected subgingivally around the titanium abutments. After 12 months, however, both abutment-types harboured equal proportions of spirochetes and motile organisms, both supra- and subgingivally. The microbial culturing (month 12) failed to detect large inter-abutment differences. The differences in number of colony- forming units (aerobic and anaerobic) were within one division of a logarithmic scale. The aerobic culture data showed a higher proportion of Gram-negative organisms in the subgingival flora of the rougher abutments. From the group of potentially "pathogenic" bacteria, only Prevotella intermedia and Fusobacterium nucleatum were detected for anaerobic culturing and again the inter-abutment differences were negligible. Clinically, the smoothest abutment showed a slightly higher increase in probing depth between months 3 and 12, and more bleeding on probing. The present results confirm the findings of our previous short-term study, indicating that a further reduction of the surface roughness, below a certain "threshold R(a)" (0.2 microns), has no major impact on the supra- and subgingival microbial composition.

0 comments Cited 105 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature.

Jessica C Bollen, M Quirynen (1994)

In the oral cavity, an open growth system, bacterial adhesion to the non-shedding surfaces is for most bacteria the only way to survive. This adhesion occurs in 4 phases: the transport of the bacterium to the surface, the initial adhesion with a reversible and irreversible stage, the attachment by specific interactions, and finally the colonization in order to form a biofilm. Different hard surfaces are available in the oral cavity (teeth, filling materials, dental implants, or prostheses), all with different surface characteristics. In a healthy situation, a dynamic equilibrium exists on these surfaces between the forces of retention and those of removal. However, an increased bacterial accumulation often results in a shift toward disease. 2 mechanisms favour the retention of dental plaque: adhesion and stagnation. The aim of this review is to examine the influence of the surface roughness and the surface free energy in the adhesion process. Both in vitro and in vivo studies underline the importance of both variables in supragingival plaque formation. Rough surfaces will promote plaque formation and maturation, and high-energy surfaces are known to collect more plaque, to bind the plaque more strongly and to select specific bacteria. Although both variables interact with each other, the influence of surface roughness overrules that of the surface free energy. For the subgingival environment, with more facilities for microorganisms to survive, the importance of surface characteristics dramatically decreases. However, the influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supragingival plaque justifies the demand for smooth surfaces with a low surface-free energy in order to minimise plaque formation, thereby reducing the occurrence of caries and periodontitis.

0 comments Cited 103 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Onur Şahin:

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8018-6946

sonurs6o@hotmail.com

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Oral Health

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Oral Health

Title: BMC Oral Health

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1472-6831

Publication date (Electronic): 19 July 2022

Publication date PMC-release: 19 July 2022

Publication date Collection: 2022

Volume: 22

Electronic Location Identifier: 299

Affiliations

[1 ]Sincan Oral Dental Health Center, 06930 Ankara, Turkey

[2 ]Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, 07490 Antalya, Turkey

[3 ]GRID grid.411822.c, ISNI 0000 0001 2033 6079, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, , Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, ; 67600 Zonguldak, Turkey

[4 ]GRID grid.411822.c, ISNI 0000 0001 2033 6079, Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine, , Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, ; 67600 Zonguldak, Turkey

[5 ]GRID grid.5734.5, ISNI 0000 0001 0726 5157, Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, , University of Bern, ; 3012 Bern, Switzerland

[6 ]GRID grid.5734.5, ISNI 0000 0001 0726 5157, Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, , University of Bern, ; 3012 Bern, Switzerland

[7 ]GRID grid.261331.4, ISNI 0000 0001 2285 7943, Division of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, , The Ohio State University, ; Columbus, OH 43210 USA

Author information

Eda Eslemez Topcu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7916-3317

Onur Şahin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8018-6946

Ayşegül Köroğlu http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0288-6357

Füsun Cömert http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0161-6897

Burak Yilmaz http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7101-363X

Article

Publisher ID: 2323

DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02323-x

PMC ID: 9295459

PubMed ID: 35854282

SO-VID: 077bfbef-1c1c-4f92-8a60-286526c46b8c

License:

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

History

Date received : 20 February 2022

Date accepted : 7 July 2022

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Dentistry

Keywords: interim materials,chewing simulator,surface sealant agent,surface roughness,streptococcus mutans

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Dentistry

Keywords: interim materials, chewing simulator, surface sealant agent, surface roughness, streptococcus mutans

Surface roughness and Streptococcus mutans adhesion on surface sealant agent coupled interim crown materials after dynamic loading

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Related collections

Arab Journal of Forensic Sciences & Forensic Medicine (AJFSFM)

Most cited references 36

Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature.

The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis.

The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author information

Article

History

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 288

Cited by 2

Most referenced authors 294