Cargando…
Influence of the Surface Energy of Different Brands of Polymethyl Methacrylate on the Adherence of Candida albicans: An In Vitro Study
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of the surface energy of different brands of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) on the adherence of Candida albicans ATCC 10231 in an in vitro study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study had an in vitro, longitudinal, and comparative exper...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7934818/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33688467 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_291_20 |
_version_ | 1783660889026592768 |
---|---|
author | Cabanillas, Betty Mallma-Medina, Adrián Petkova-Gueorguieva, Marieta Alvitez-Temoche, Daniel Mendoza, Román Mayta-Tovalino, Frank |
author_facet | Cabanillas, Betty Mallma-Medina, Adrián Petkova-Gueorguieva, Marieta Alvitez-Temoche, Daniel Mendoza, Román Mayta-Tovalino, Frank |
author_sort | Cabanillas, Betty |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of the surface energy of different brands of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) on the adherence of Candida albicans ATCC 10231 in an in vitro study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study had an in vitro, longitudinal, and comparative experimental design. The following groups were made: (1) Vitacryl versus controls (water, dimethyl sulfoxide, glycerol, diethylene glycol, and formamide); (2) Triplex versus the same controls; (3) Vitacryl versus Triplex (surface energy); and (4) Vitacryl versus Triplex (adhesion per cell/field). Adhesion was measured in the area of each field magnified 10 × 10, and with an increase in magnification to 40 × 10, very dense colonies of 0.152 mm(2) were observed. RESULTS: The surface energy of Vitacryl and Triplex was 40.3 ± 0.3 and 39.5 ± 0.3N/m, respectively, showing statistically significant differences (P < 0.001). On the contrary, in relation to the adhesion per cell/field of C. albicans, Vitacryl presented 15.7 ± 1.1, whereas Triplex had 16.7 ± 2.3, with no significant differences (P = 0.058). CONCLUSION: In relation to the adhesion per cell/field of C. albicans, there was no evidence of significant differences between Vitacryl and Triplex. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7934818 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79348182021-03-08 Influence of the Surface Energy of Different Brands of Polymethyl Methacrylate on the Adherence of Candida albicans: An In Vitro Study Cabanillas, Betty Mallma-Medina, Adrián Petkova-Gueorguieva, Marieta Alvitez-Temoche, Daniel Mendoza, Román Mayta-Tovalino, Frank J Int Soc Prev Community Dent Original Article OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of the surface energy of different brands of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) on the adherence of Candida albicans ATCC 10231 in an in vitro study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study had an in vitro, longitudinal, and comparative experimental design. The following groups were made: (1) Vitacryl versus controls (water, dimethyl sulfoxide, glycerol, diethylene glycol, and formamide); (2) Triplex versus the same controls; (3) Vitacryl versus Triplex (surface energy); and (4) Vitacryl versus Triplex (adhesion per cell/field). Adhesion was measured in the area of each field magnified 10 × 10, and with an increase in magnification to 40 × 10, very dense colonies of 0.152 mm(2) were observed. RESULTS: The surface energy of Vitacryl and Triplex was 40.3 ± 0.3 and 39.5 ± 0.3N/m, respectively, showing statistically significant differences (P < 0.001). On the contrary, in relation to the adhesion per cell/field of C. albicans, Vitacryl presented 15.7 ± 1.1, whereas Triplex had 16.7 ± 2.3, with no significant differences (P = 0.058). CONCLUSION: In relation to the adhesion per cell/field of C. albicans, there was no evidence of significant differences between Vitacryl and Triplex. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021-01-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7934818/ /pubmed/33688467 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_291_20 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Cabanillas, Betty Mallma-Medina, Adrián Petkova-Gueorguieva, Marieta Alvitez-Temoche, Daniel Mendoza, Román Mayta-Tovalino, Frank Influence of the Surface Energy of Different Brands of Polymethyl Methacrylate on the Adherence of Candida albicans: An In Vitro Study |
title | Influence of the Surface Energy of Different Brands of Polymethyl Methacrylate on the Adherence of Candida albicans: An In Vitro Study |
title_full | Influence of the Surface Energy of Different Brands of Polymethyl Methacrylate on the Adherence of Candida albicans: An In Vitro Study |
title_fullStr | Influence of the Surface Energy of Different Brands of Polymethyl Methacrylate on the Adherence of Candida albicans: An In Vitro Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Influence of the Surface Energy of Different Brands of Polymethyl Methacrylate on the Adherence of Candida albicans: An In Vitro Study |
title_short | Influence of the Surface Energy of Different Brands of Polymethyl Methacrylate on the Adherence of Candida albicans: An In Vitro Study |
title_sort | influence of the surface energy of different brands of polymethyl methacrylate on the adherence of candida albicans: an in vitro study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7934818/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33688467 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_291_20 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cabanillasbetty influenceofthesurfaceenergyofdifferentbrandsofpolymethylmethacrylateontheadherenceofcandidaalbicansaninvitrostudy AT mallmamedinaadrian influenceofthesurfaceenergyofdifferentbrandsofpolymethylmethacrylateontheadherenceofcandidaalbicansaninvitrostudy AT petkovagueorguievamarieta influenceofthesurfaceenergyofdifferentbrandsofpolymethylmethacrylateontheadherenceofcandidaalbicansaninvitrostudy AT alviteztemochedaniel influenceofthesurfaceenergyofdifferentbrandsofpolymethylmethacrylateontheadherenceofcandidaalbicansaninvitrostudy AT mendozaroman influenceofthesurfaceenergyofdifferentbrandsofpolymethylmethacrylateontheadherenceofcandidaalbicansaninvitrostudy AT maytatovalinofrank influenceofthesurfaceenergyofdifferentbrandsofpolymethylmethacrylateontheadherenceofcandidaalbicansaninvitrostudy |