Seramik Esaslı CAD/CAM Materyallerinde Bitim İşlemleri Sonrası Yüzey Pürüzlülüğü ve Bakteri Tutulumunun Değerlendirilmesi

Abstract

AMAÇ: Seramik malzemeler için ideal bitim işlemini yüzey pürüzlülüğü ve bakteriyel adezyon parametreleri ile değerlendirerek belirlemektir. GEREÇ-YÖNTEM: Farklı CAD/CAM seramik malzemelerinden (IPS Empress CAD, IPS E-Max CAD, VITA Suprinity ve CEREC blokları) 1±0.05 mm kalınlığında 120 numune hazırlandı. Her seramik grubundan hazırlanan numuneler bitirme işlemine göre (kontrol, manuel polisaj ve glaze) üç alt gruba (n=10) ayrıldı. Yüzey pürüzlülük değerleri başlangıçta ve işlem sonrası olmak üzere iki kere optik profilometre cihazı kullanılarak ölçüldü. Taramalı elektron mikroskobu (SEM) analizi için her gruptan birer numune hazırlandı ve yüzey pürüzlülüğü SEM ile görüntülendi. Alınan numunelerin yüzeylerinde S. mutans tutulumu olup olmadığını belirlemek için bakteriyel adezyon testi uygulandı. BULGULAR: Bitim işleminlerinden sonra en yüksek Ra değeri LC glaze grubunda gözlendi ve LC glaze grubu ile polisaj grupları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark bulundu (p<0.05). Bakteriyel adezyon miktarı en az LD glaze grubunda gözlenmiştir. LD glaze grubu ile LC kontrol ve ZL kontrol grupları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmamıştır (p> 0.05). SONUÇ: Polisaj işlemi seramik yüzeyde glaze olan yüzeylere göre daha pürüzsüz alanlar bırakmıştır. Bakteriyel adezyon açısından değerlendirildiğinde her seramik türü için etkili polisaj yöntemi farklı olduğu ortaya çıkmıştır. Bu nedenle seramik cinsine göre polisaj yöntemi tercih edilmelidir.

Keywords

• bakteri
• seramik
• kron
• mikrobiyoloji
• zirkonyum

Evaluation of Surface Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion After Different Finishing Procedures on CAD/CAM Ceramic Materials

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study is to determine the ideal finishing process for CAD/CAM ceramic materials for use in dental restorations. For this determination, the surface roughness and bacterial adhesion counts of the ceramic surfaces after common finishing procedures are compared. Materials and Methods: A total of 120 samples with a thickness of 1 ± 0.05 mm were obtained from different CAD/CAM ceramic materials (IPS Empress CAD, IPS E-Max CAD, VITA Suprinity and CEREC blocs). The samples from each ceramic group were divided into three subgroups (n = 10) according to the finishing procedure (control, manual polished and glazed). The surface roughness values (Ra) were measured with an optical profilometer before and after each finishing procedure. An additional sample from each group was prepared for scanning, and surface roughness was visualized using scanning electron microscope analysis. A bacterial adhesion test was applied to determine the levels of Streptococcus mutans adhesion on each surface. Results: After the finishing process, the highest Ra value was observed in the LC glazed group, and a statistically significant difference was found between the LC glazed group and the manual polished groups (p < 0.05). The least amount of bacterial adhesion was observed in the LD glaze group. There were no statistically significant differences between the LD glaze group and the LC and ZL control groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The polished samples had smoother ceramic surfaces than the glazed samples. When evaluated in terms of bacterial adhesion, the effective polishing method for each ceramic type varied. Therefore, the polishing method should be chosen according to ceramic type.

Keywords

• Bacteria
• Ceramics
• Crowns
• Microbiology
• Zirconium

References

1. Kelly JR, Nishimura I, Campbell SD. Ceramics in dentistry: Historical roots and current perspectives. J Prosthet Dent 1996; 75: 18-32.
2. Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic- network materials. Dent Mater 2013; 29: 419-26.
3. Kirsch C, Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. Trueness of four different milling procedures used in dental CAD / CAM systems. Clin Oral Invest 2017; 21: 551-8.
4. Giordano R. Materials for chairside CAD/CAMproduced restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:14S-21S.
5. Wildgoose DG, Johnson A, Winstanley RB. Glass/ ceramic/refractory techniques, their development and introduction into dentistry: A historical literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91:136-43.
6. Sannino G, Germano F, Arcuri L, Bigelli E, Arcuri C, Barlattani A. CEREC CAD/CAM Chairside System. Oral Implantol (Rome) 2015; 7: 57-70.
7. Sieper K, Wille S, Kern M. Fracture strength of lithium disilicate crowns compared to polymer-infiltrated ceramicnetwork and zirconia reinforced lithium silicate crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017; 74: 342-348.
8. Carrabba M, Vichi A, Vultaggio G, Pallari S, Paravina R, Ferrari M. Effect of Finishing and Polishing on the Surface Roughness and Gloss of Feldspathic Ceramic for Chairside CAD/ CAM Systems. Oper Dent 2017; 42: 175- 184.

9. Schmidlin PR, Gohring TN. Finishing tooth-colored restorations in vitro: an index of surface alteration and finish-line destruction. Oper Dent 2004; 29: 80-6.
10. Yildiz H, Sen E, Dalcik H, Meseli S.E. Evaluation of cell morphology and adhesion capacity of human gingival fibroblasts on titanium discs with different roughened surfaces: an in vitro scanning electron microscope analysis and cell culture study. Folia Morphol 2023; 82: 63-71.
11. Aas JA, Paster BJ, Stokes LN, Olsen I, Dewhirst FE. Defining the normal bacterial flora of the oral cavity. J Clin Microbiol 2005; 43: 5721-32.
12. Avila M, Ojcius DM, Yilmaz O. The oral microbiota: Living with a permanent guest. DNA Cell Biol 2009; 28: 405-11.
13. Curyl MS, Silva CB, Nogueira RD, Campos MGD, Palma-Dibb RG, Geraldo-Martins VR. Surface roughness and bacterial adhesion on root dentin treated with diode laser and conventional desensitizing agents. Lasers Med Sci 2018; 33: 257-62.
14. Aboushelib MN, Elsafi MH. Survival of resin infiltrated ceramics under influence of fatigue. Dental Materials 2016; 32: 529–534.
15. Jefferies SR. The art and science of abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 1998; 42: 613-27.
16. Fasbinder DJ, Neiva GF. Surface evaluation of polishing techniques for new resilient CAD / CAM restorative materials. J Esthet Restor Dent 2016; 28: 56- 66.
17. Han G, Kim J, Lee M, Chae S, Lee Y, Cho B. Performance of a novel polishing rubber wheel in improving surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain. Dent Mater J 2014; 33: 739-748.
18. Tekce N, Fidan S, Tuncer S, Kara D, Demirci M. The effect of glazing and aging on the surface properties of CAD / CAM resin blocks. J Adv Prosthodont 2018; 10: 50-7.
19. El Zohairy AA, De Gee AJ, Mohsen MM, Feilzer AJ. Microtensile bond strength testing of luting cements to prefabricated CAD / CAM ceramic and composite blocks. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 575-83.
20. Whitehead SA, Shearer AC, Watts DC, Wilson NH. Comparison of two stylus methods for measuring surface texture. Dent Mater 1999; 15: 79-86.
21. Kakaboura A, Fragouli M, Rahiotis C, Silikas N. Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss- meter. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007; 18: 155-63.
22. Janus J, Fauxpoint G, Arntz Y, Pelletier H, Etienne O. Surface roughness and morphology of three nanocomposites after two different polishing treatments by a multitechnique approach. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 416- 25.
23. Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Ohmiti K, Rousson V. Surface deterioration of dental materials after simulated toothbrushing in relation to brushing time and load. Dent Mater 2010; 26: 306-19.
24. Hulterstrom AK, Bergman M. Polishing systems for dental ceramics. Acta Odontol Scand 1993; 5: 229-34.
25. Sarac D, Sarac YS, Yuzbasioglu E, Bal S. The effects of porcelain polishing systems on the color and surface texture of feldspathic porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 96: 122-8
26. Aravind P, Razak PA, Francis PG, Issac JK, Shanoj RP, Sasikumar TP. Comparative Evaluation of the Efficiency of Four Ceramic Finishing Systems. J I Oral Health 2013; 5: 59-64.
27. Flury S, Lussi A, Zimmerli B. Performance of different polishing techniques for direct CAD / CAM ceramic restorations. Oper Dent 2010; 35: 470-81.
28. Han GJ, Kim JH, Lee M, Chae SY, Lee YH, Cho BH. Performance of a novel polishing rubber wheel in improving surface roughness of feldspathic porcelain. Dent Mater J 2014; 33:739-748.
29. Albakrya M, Guazzatoa M, Swain MV. Effect of sandblasting, grinding, polishing and glazing on the flexural strength of two pressable all-ceramic dental materials. J Dent 2004; 32: 91-99.
30. Gonuldas F, Ozturk C, Atalay P, Oztas D. Influence of different surface finishing techniques on machinable feldspathic and leucite-reinforced ceramics. Dent Mater J 2019; 38: 317-322.
31. Sulik WD, Plekavich EJ. Surface fi nishing of dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 1981; 46: 217-221.
32. Mohammadibassi M, Rezvani MB, Golzari H, Salehi EM, Fahimi MA, Fard MJK. Effect of Two Polishing Systems on Surface Roughness, Topography, and Flexural Strength of a Monolithic Lithium Disilicate Ceramic. J Prosthodont 2019; 28: e172-e180.
33. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D. The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: short-term observations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996; 11: 169-78.
34. Bollen CM, Papaioanno W, Van Eldere J, Schepers E, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996; 7: 201-11.
35. Glass RT, Conrad RS, Köhler GA, Warren AJ, Bullard JW. Microbiota found in protective athletic mouthguards. Sports Health 2011; 3: 244-8.
36. Piva AD, Contreras LPC, Ribeiro FC, Anami LC, Camargo SEA, Jorge AOC, Bottino MA. Monolithic Ceramics: Effect of Finishing Techniques on Surface Properties, Bacterial Adhesion and Cell Viability. Oper Dent 2018; 43: 315-25.
37. Hahnel S, Rosentritt M, Handel G, Bürgers R. Surface characterization of dental ceramics and initial streptococcal adhesion in vitro. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 969-75.
38. Aykent F, Yondem I, Ozyesil AG, Gunal SK, Avunduk MC, Ozkan S. Effect of different finishing techniques for restorative materials on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103: 221-227.
39. Song F, Koo H, Ren D. Effects of material properties on bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. J Den Res 2015; 94:1027-1034.
40. Quirynen M, Van der Mei HC, Bollen CM, Van den Bossche LH, Doornbusch GI, van Steenberghe D, Busscher HJ. The influence of surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque microbiology: An in vivo study on implants. J Periodontol 1994; 65: 162-7.
41. S Kreve, AC Dos Reis. Effect of surface properties of ceramic materials on bacterial adhesion: A systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent 2022; 34: 461-472.
42. Aksoy G, Polat H, Polat M, Coskun G. Effect of various treatment and glazing (coating) techniques on the roughness and wettability of ceramic dental restorative surfaces. Colloid Surf B Biointerfaces 2006; 53: 254-9.
43. Lawaf S, Azizi A, Farzad A, Adimi P. Effect of surface treatments of porcelain on adhesion of Candida albicans. Gen Dent 2016; 64: e1-e4.
44. Stti R, Kantorski KZ, Monaco C, Valandro LF, Ciocca L, Bottino MA. SEM evaluation of in situ early bacterial colonization on a Y-TZP ceramic: A pilot study. Int J Prosthodont 2007; 20: 419-22.
45. Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 2: 68–81.
46. Renner LD, Weibel DB. Physicochemical regulation of biofilm formation. MRS Bull 2011; 36: 347-355.
47. Lin HY, Liu YL, Wismeijer D, Crielaard W, Deng DM. Effects of oral implant surface roughness on bacterial biofilm formation and treatment efficacy. Inter J Oral Maxillofacial Implants 2013; 28:1226-31.