Cargando…
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 finis...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4969518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27516775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8685796 |
_version_ | 1782445788297691136 |
---|---|
author | Dantas, Lucas Costa de Medeiros da Silva-Neto, João Paulo Dantas, Talita Souza Naves, Lucas Zago das Neves, Flávio Domingues da Mota, Adérito Soares |
author_facet | Dantas, Lucas Costa de Medeiros da Silva-Neto, João Paulo Dantas, Talita Souza Naves, Lucas Zago das Neves, Flávio Domingues da Mota, Adérito Soares |
author_sort | Dantas, Lucas Costa de Medeiros |
collection | PubMed |
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 | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4969518 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Hindawi Publishing Corporation |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49695182016-08-11 Bacterial Adhesion and Surface Roughness for Different Clinical Techniques for Acrylic Polymethyl Methacrylate Dantas, Lucas Costa de Medeiros da Silva-Neto, João Paulo Dantas, Talita Souza Naves, Lucas Zago das Neves, Flávio Domingues da Mota, Adérito Soares Int J Dent Research Article 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. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2016 2016-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4969518/ /pubmed/27516775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8685796 Text en Copyright © 2016 Lucas Costa de Medeiros Dantas et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Dantas, Lucas Costa de Medeiros da Silva-Neto, João Paulo Dantas, Talita Souza Naves, Lucas Zago das Neves, Flávio Domingues da Mota, Adérito Soares Bacterial Adhesion and Surface Roughness for Different Clinical Techniques for Acrylic Polymethyl Methacrylate |
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 |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4969518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27516775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8685796 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dantaslucascostademedeiros bacterialadhesionandsurfaceroughnessfordifferentclinicaltechniquesforacrylicpolymethylmethacrylate AT dasilvanetojoaopaulo bacterialadhesionandsurfaceroughnessfordifferentclinicaltechniquesforacrylicpolymethylmethacrylate AT dantastalitasouza bacterialadhesionandsurfaceroughnessfordifferentclinicaltechniquesforacrylicpolymethylmethacrylate AT naveslucaszago bacterialadhesionandsurfaceroughnessfordifferentclinicaltechniquesforacrylicpolymethylmethacrylate AT dasnevesflaviodomingues bacterialadhesionandsurfaceroughnessfordifferentclinicaltechniquesforacrylicpolymethylmethacrylate AT damotaaderitosoares bacterialadhesionandsurfaceroughnessfordifferentclinicaltechniquesforacrylicpolymethylmethacrylate |