EFFECT OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS ON BACTERIAL COLONIZATION IN FIXED PROSTHESES

Abstract

In the past, all-ceramic restorations were used to meet the aesthetic expectations in the anterior area. At the present time, these restorations can be used in all area of dentition. With prolongation of life and the recent studies revealing the effects of oral microflora on the general health of the person, it is also important that dental restorations minimizing bacterial contamination as well as meeting the prosthetic needs. For this reason, researchers have been continuously improving the mechanical properties of dental ceramic materials. Compared to materials produced with traditional systems, CAD/CAM materials have technical advantages. In this rewiev , bacterial effects of different polishing systems used in CAD/CAM restorations are included.

Keywords

• fixed dentures
• bacterial colonization
• surface roughness

SABİT PROTEZLERDE YÜZEY PÜRÜZLÜLÜĞÜNÜN BAKTERİ KOLONİZASYONUNA ETKİSİ

Abstract

Geçmiş yıllarda tam seramik restorasyonların kullanım alanları sadece ön bölge tedavileri ile kısıtlı iken günümüzde bu restorasyonlar, dentisyonun tüm alanlarında kullanılabilmektedir. Yaşam süresinin uzaması ve son yıllarda yapılan çalışmaların oral mikrofloranın kişinin genel sağlığı üzerindeki etkilerini ortaya çıkarmasıyla birlikte, yapılan dental restorasyonların protetik ihtiyaçları karşılamasının yanında bakteriyel kontaminasyonu en aza indirmesi de büyük önem taşımaktadır. Bu nedenle, araştırmacılar dental seramik materyallerin mekanik özelliklerini devamlı olarak geliştirmeye yönelmiştir. Geleneksel sistemlerle üretilen materyallerle kıyaslandığında, CAD/CAM materyalleri teknik anlamda avantajlara sahiptir. Bu derleme, CAD/CAM sistemlerinde kullanılan tam seramiklerde farklı polisaj sistemlerinin bakteriyel kontaminasyon üzerindeki etkileri hakkında genel bilgi veren bir literatür taramasıdır.

Keywords

• Sabit protezler
• bakteriyel kolonizasyon
• yüzey pürüzlülüğü

References

1. Alghamdi HS, Jansen JA. The development and future of dental implants. Dent Mater J. 2020 Mar 31;39(2):167-172.
2. Hayes M, Blum IR, da Mata C. Contemporary Challenges and Management of Dental Caries in the Older Population. Prim Dent J. 2020 Sep;9(3):18-22.
3. Carlsson GE, Omar R. The future of complete dentures in oral rehabilitation. A critical review. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2010;37(2):143-56.
4. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications in fixed prosthodontics. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2003;90(1):31-41.
5. Kumbargere NS, Eachempati P, Paisi M, Nasser M, Sivaramakrishnan G, Verbeek JH. Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 12;10:CD013686.
6. Souza JC, Mota RR, Sordi MB, Passoni BB, Benfatti CA, Magini RS. Biofilm formation on different materials used in oral rehabilitation. Brazilian dental journal. 2016;27(2):141-7.
7. Newman MG, Klokkevold PR. Carranza FA. Carranza’s Clinical Periodontology. 10th ed. 2006.
8. Germaine GR, Harlander SK, Leung WL, Schachtele CF. Streptococcus mutans dextransucrase: functioning of primer dextran and endogenous dextranase in water-soluble and water-insoluble glucan synthesis. Infection and immunity. 1977;16(2):637-48.

9. Liljemark WF, Bloomquist C. Human oral microbial ecology and dental caries and periodontal diseases. Critical reviews in oral biology and medicine : an official publication of the American Association of Oral Biologists. 1996;7(2):180-98.
10. Jain PS, Damle SG, Dedhia SP, Jetpurwala AM, Gupte TS. Evaluation of the association between tuftelin gene polymorphism, Streptococcus mutans, and dental caries susceptibility. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2020 Oct-Dec;38(4):381-386.
11. Marsh PD, Martın, M.V. Oral Microbiology , Reed Educational andProfessional Publishing Ltd.,Oxford. 4th ed2000.
12. Contreras-Guerrero P, Ortiz-Magdaleno M, Urcuyo-Alvarado MS, Cepeda-Bravo JA, Leyva-Del Rio D, Pérez-López JE, Romo-Ramírez GF, Sánchez-Vargas LO. Effect of dental restorative materials surface roughness on the in vitro biofilm formation of Streptococcus mutans biofilm. Am J Dent. 2020 Apr;33(2):59-63.
13. Oda Y, Miura T, Mori G, Sasaki H, Ito T, Yoshinari M, Yajima Y. Adhesion of streptococci to titanium and zirconia. PLoS One. 2020 Jun 24;15(6):e0234524.
14. Çakır FY, Gürgan S, Attar N. Çürük mikrobiyolojisi. H Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2010;34(3):78-91.
15. Auschill TM, Arweiler NB, Brecx M, Reich E, Sculean A, Netuschil L. The effect of dental restorative materials on dental biofilm. European journal of oral sciences. 2002;110(1):48-53.
16. Wang Z, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. Dynamics of Dissolution, Killing, and Inhibition of Dental Plaque Biofilm. Front Microbiol. 2020 May 20;11:964ç
17. Mei L, Ren Y, Busscher HJ, Chen Y, van der Mei HC. Poisson analysis of streptococcal bond-strengthening on saliva-coated enamel. Journal of dental research. 2009;88(9):841-5.
18. Ready D, Pratten J, Mordan N, Watts E, Wilson M. The effect of amalgam exposure on mercury-and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. International journal of antimicrobial agents. 2007;30(1):34-9.
19. Sousa RP, Zanin IC, Lima JP, ve ark. In situ effects of restorative materials on dental biofilm and enamel demineralisation. Journal of dentistry. 2009;37(1):44-51.
20. Takahashi Y, Imazato S, Russell RR, Noiri Y, Ebisu S. Influence of resin monomers on growth of oral streptococci. Journal of dental research. 2004;83(4):302-6.
21. Brambilla E, García-Godoy F, Strohmenger L. Principles of diagnosis and treatment of high-caries-risk subjects. Dental clinics of North America. 2000;44(3):507-40.
22. Schmalz G, Ergücü Z, Hiller KA. Effect of dentin on the antibacterial activity of dentin bonding agents. Journal of endodontics. 2004;30(5):352-8.
23. Carlén A, Nikdel K, Wennerberg A, Holmberg K, Olsson J. Surface characteristics and in vitro biofilm formation on glass ionomer and composite resin. Biomaterials. 2001;22(5):481-7.
24. Moshaverinia A, Roohpour N, Chee WW, Schricker SR. A review of powder modifications in conventional glass-ionomer dental cements. Journal of materials chemistry. 2011;21(5):1319-28.
25. Nakajo K, Imazato S, Takahashi Y, Kiba W, Ebisu S, Takahashi N. Fluoride released from glass-ionomer cement is responsible to inhibit the acid production of caries-related oral streptococci. Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials. 2009;25(6):703-8.
26. Hengtrakool C, Pearson GJ, Wilson M. Interaction between GIC and S. sanguis biofilms: antibacterial properties and changes of surface hardness. Journal of dentistry. 2006;34(8):588-97.
27. Al-Naimi OT, Itota T, Hobson RS, McCabe JF. Fluoride release for restorative materials and its effect on biofilm formation in natural saliva. Journal of materials science Materials in medicine. 2008;19(3):1243-8.
28. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials-fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials. 2007;23(3):343-62.
29. Hatibović-Kofman S, Koch G. Fluoride release from glass ionomer cement in vivo and in vitro. Swedish dental journal. 1991;15(6):253-8.
30. Kawai K, Urano M. Adherence of plaque components to different restorative materials. Operative dentistry. 2001;26(4):396-400.
31. Quirynen M, Bollen CML. The influence of surface roughness and surface‐free energy on supra‐ and subgingival plaque formation in man: A review of the literature. Journal of Clinical Periodontology,1995:22(1):1–14.
32. 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. Clinical oral implants research. 1996;7(3):201-11.
33. Hu D, Gong J, He B, Chen Z, Li M. Surface properties and Streptococcus mutans - Streptococcus sanguinis adhesion of fluorotic enamel. Arch Oral Biol. 2021 Jan;121:104970.
34. Sasahara RM, Ribeiro Fda C, Cesar PF, Yoshimura HN. Influence of the finishing technique on surface roughness of dental porcelains with different microstructures. Operative dentistry. 2006;31(5):577-83.
35. Scurria MS, Powers JM. Surface roughness of two polished ceramic materials. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1994;71(2):174-7.
36. Aykent F, İnan Ö, Üşümez A, Sevimay M. Farklı polisaj yöntemleri uygulanan seramiklerde yüzey pürüzlülüğünün incelenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2001;18(2):63-7.
37. Jagger DC, Harrison A. An in vitro investigation into the wear effects of unglazed, glazed, and polished porcelain on human enamel. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1994;72(3):320-3.
38. Incesu E, Yanikoglu N. Evaluation of the effect of different polishing systems on the surface roughness of dental ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Jul;124(1):100-109.
39. Patterson C, McLundie A, Stirrups D, Taylor W. Refinishing of porcelain by using a refinishing kit. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1991;65(3):383-8.
40. Çökük N. Çeşitli tam seramik sistemlerde; yüzey pürüzlülüğünün ve polisaj metotlarının bakteri adezyonuna etkisinin incelenmesi Selçuk Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü; 2007.
41. Carlén A, Nikdel K, Wennerberg A, Holmberg K, Olsson J. Surface characteristics and in vitro biofilm formation on glass ionomer and composite resin. Biomaterials, 2001;22(5):481–487.
42. Goodson J, Shoher I, Imber S, Som S, Nathanson D. Reduced dental plaque accumulation on composite gold alloy margins. Journal of periodontal research. 2001;36(4):252-9.
43. Hahn R, Weiger R, Netuschil L, Brüch M. Microbial accumulation and vitality on different restorative materials. Dental Materials. 1993;9(5):312-6.
44. Sarac D, Sarac YS, Yuzbasioglu E, Bal S. The effects of porcelain polishing systems on the color and surface texture of feldspathic porcelain. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2006;96(2):122-8.