Bacterial Adhesion and Surface Roughness for Different Clinical Techniques for Acrylic Polymethyl Methacrylate
This study sought to assess the effect of different surface finishing and polishing protocols on the surface roughness and bacterial adhesion (S. sanguinis) to polymethyl methacrylates (PMMA). Fifty specimens were divided into 5 groups (n=10) according to their fabrication method and surface finishi...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Dentistry |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8685796 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832552501906243584 |
|---|---|
| author | Lucas Costa de Medeiros Dantas João Paulo da Silva-Neto Talita Souza Dantas Lucas Zago Naves Flávio Domingues das Neves Adérito Soares da Mota |
| author_facet | Lucas Costa de Medeiros Dantas João Paulo da Silva-Neto Talita Souza Dantas Lucas Zago Naves Flávio Domingues das Neves Adérito Soares da Mota |
| author_sort | Lucas Costa de Medeiros Dantas |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study sought to assess the effect of different surface finishing and polishing protocols on the surface roughness and bacterial adhesion (S. sanguinis) to polymethyl methacrylates (PMMA). Fifty specimens were divided into 5 groups (n=10) according to their fabrication method and surface finishing protocol: LP (3 : 1 ratio and laboratory polishing), NF (Nealon technique and finishing), NP (Nealon technique and manual polishing), MF (3 : 1 ratio and manual finishing), and MP (3 : 1 ratio and manual polishing). For each group, five specimens were submitted to bacterial adhesion tests and analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Two additional specimens were subjected to surface topography analysis by SEM and the remaining three specimens were subjected to surface roughness measurements. Data were compared by one-way ANOVA. The mean bacterial counts were as follows: NF, 19.6±3.05; MP, 5.36±2.08; NP, 4.96±1.93; MF, 7.36±2.45; and LP, 1.56±0.62 (CFU). The mean surface roughness values were as follows: NF, 3.23±0.15; MP, 0.52±0.05; NP, 0.60±0.08; MF, 2.69±0.12; and LP, 0.07±0.02 (μm). A reduction in the surface roughness was observed to be directly related to a decrease in bacterial adhesion. It was verified that the laboratory processing of PMMA might decrease the surface roughness and consequently the adhesion of S. sanguinis to this material. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-5c6f2f025cbc4c1b91b4916110781067 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1687-8728 1687-8736 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Dentistry |
| spelling | doaj-art-5c6f2f025cbc4c1b91b49161107810672025-02-03T05:58:34ZengWileyInternational Journal of Dentistry1687-87281687-87362016-01-01201610.1155/2016/86857968685796Bacterial Adhesion and Surface Roughness for Different Clinical Techniques for Acrylic Polymethyl MethacrylateLucas Costa de Medeiros Dantas0João Paulo da Silva-Neto1Talita Souza Dantas2Lucas Zago Naves3Flávio Domingues das Neves4Adérito Soares da Mota5Department of Fixed Prostheses, School of Dentistry, State University of Rio Grande do Norte, Caicó, RN, BrazilDepartment of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Avenida Senador Salgado Filho, s/n, Natal, RN, BrazilLZNA Institute, Rua Alexandre Marquez 477, Uberlândia, MG, BrazilLZNA Institute, Rua Alexandre Marquez 477, Uberlândia, MG, BrazilDepartment of Fixed Prostheses, Occlusion and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlândia, Campus Umuarama, Avenida Pará No. 1720, Uberlândia, MG, BrazilDepartment of Fixed Prostheses, Occlusion and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlândia, Campus Umuarama, Avenida Pará No. 1720, Uberlândia, MG, BrazilThis study sought to assess the effect of different surface finishing and polishing protocols on the surface roughness and bacterial adhesion (S. sanguinis) to polymethyl methacrylates (PMMA). Fifty specimens were divided into 5 groups (n=10) according to their fabrication method and surface finishing protocol: LP (3 : 1 ratio and laboratory polishing), NF (Nealon technique and finishing), NP (Nealon technique and manual polishing), MF (3 : 1 ratio and manual finishing), and MP (3 : 1 ratio and manual polishing). For each group, five specimens were submitted to bacterial adhesion tests and analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Two additional specimens were subjected to surface topography analysis by SEM and the remaining three specimens were subjected to surface roughness measurements. Data were compared by one-way ANOVA. The mean bacterial counts were as follows: NF, 19.6±3.05; MP, 5.36±2.08; NP, 4.96±1.93; MF, 7.36±2.45; and LP, 1.56±0.62 (CFU). The mean surface roughness values were as follows: NF, 3.23±0.15; MP, 0.52±0.05; NP, 0.60±0.08; MF, 2.69±0.12; and LP, 0.07±0.02 (μm). A reduction in the surface roughness was observed to be directly related to a decrease in bacterial adhesion. It was verified that the laboratory processing of PMMA might decrease the surface roughness and consequently the adhesion of S. sanguinis to this material.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8685796 |
| spellingShingle | Lucas Costa de Medeiros Dantas João Paulo da Silva-Neto Talita Souza Dantas Lucas Zago Naves Flávio Domingues das Neves Adérito Soares da Mota Bacterial Adhesion and Surface Roughness for Different Clinical Techniques for Acrylic Polymethyl Methacrylate International Journal of Dentistry |
| title | Bacterial Adhesion and Surface Roughness for Different Clinical Techniques for Acrylic Polymethyl Methacrylate |
| title_full | Bacterial Adhesion and Surface Roughness for Different Clinical Techniques for Acrylic Polymethyl Methacrylate |
| title_fullStr | Bacterial Adhesion and Surface Roughness for Different Clinical Techniques for Acrylic Polymethyl Methacrylate |
| title_full_unstemmed | Bacterial Adhesion and Surface Roughness for Different Clinical Techniques for Acrylic Polymethyl Methacrylate |
| title_short | Bacterial Adhesion and Surface Roughness for Different Clinical Techniques for Acrylic Polymethyl Methacrylate |
| title_sort | bacterial adhesion and surface roughness for different clinical techniques for acrylic polymethyl methacrylate |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8685796 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lucascostademedeirosdantas bacterialadhesionandsurfaceroughnessfordifferentclinicaltechniquesforacrylicpolymethylmethacrylate AT joaopaulodasilvaneto bacterialadhesionandsurfaceroughnessfordifferentclinicaltechniquesforacrylicpolymethylmethacrylate AT talitasouzadantas bacterialadhesionandsurfaceroughnessfordifferentclinicaltechniquesforacrylicpolymethylmethacrylate AT lucaszagonaves bacterialadhesionandsurfaceroughnessfordifferentclinicaltechniquesforacrylicpolymethylmethacrylate AT flaviodominguesdasneves bacterialadhesionandsurfaceroughnessfordifferentclinicaltechniquesforacrylicpolymethylmethacrylate AT aderitosoaresdamota bacterialadhesionandsurfaceroughnessfordifferentclinicaltechniquesforacrylicpolymethylmethacrylate |