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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dantas, Lucas Costa de Medeiros, da Silva-Neto, João Paulo, Dantas, Talita Souza, Naves, Lucas Zago, das Neves, Flávio Domingues, da Mota, Adérito Soares
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