In Vitro Effects of Four Porcelain Surface Treatment Methods on Adhesion of Lactobacilli Acidophilus
Journal of Dental School,
Vol. 33 No. 2 (2015),
25 April 2015
,
Page 131-137
https://doi.org/10.22037/jds.v33i2.24726
Abstract
Objective: Adhesion of Lactobacillus acidophilus (L. acidophilus) to dental porcelain surface may lead to gingival inflammation and secondary caries. Surface roughness is among the factors affecting this adhesion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of four different surface treatment methods on adhesion of L. acidophilus to dental porcelain.
Methods: Sixty specimens (3x10mm) were fabricated of Noritake porcelain and divided into 4 groups (n=15) treated with one of the following four surface finishing techniques: 1. Auto-glazing;
2. Over-glazing; 3. Polishing with Kenda kit and 4. No surface treatment (non-glazed specimens). Specimens were inoculated with bacterial suspension containing 1x106colony forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL) and L. acidophilus adhesion to the surfaces was evaluated using a spectrophotometer. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test.
Results: The mean bacterial adhesion was 0.1440 (0.00429) to auto-glazed specimens, 0.0750 (0.00256) to over-glazed specimens, 0.1800 (0.00325) to polished specimens and 0.7064 (0.00408) to the non-glazed specimens. The differences in this regard among groups were statistically significant (p<0.001).
Conclusion: Over-glazed specimens caused the lowest and non-glazed specimens caused the highest bacterial adhesion. The glazed surfaces caused less adhesion than the polished surfaces- Bacterial adhesion
- Dental porcelain
- Lactobacillus acidophilus
- Surface treatment
How to Cite
References
Roberson TM, Heymann H, Swift EJ, Sturdevant CM. At and science of operative dentistry. 5th Ed. S.T. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Inc. 2006; Chap 2: 67-134.
Buergers R, Rosentritt M, Handel G.Bacterial a dhesion of streptococcus mutans to provisional fixed prosthodontic material. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 98: 461-469.
Checketts MR, Turkyilmaz I, Asar NV. An investigation of the effect of scaling-induced surface roughness on bacterial adhesion in common fixed dental restorative materials Prosthet Dent 2014; 12: 1265-1270.
AL-Marzok MI, Al-Azzawi HJ. The effect of the surface roughness of porcelain on the adhesion of oral streptoccus mutans. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009: 1; 10: E017-24.
Kantorski KZ, ScottiR, Valandro LF, Bottino MA, Koga-Ito CY, Jorge AO. Surface roughness and bacterial adherence to resin composite and ceramics. Oral Health Prev Dent 2009; 7: 29-32.
Kou W, Molin M, Sjogren G. Surface roughness of five different dental ceramic core materials after grinding and polishing. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33: 117-124.
Sasahara RM, Ribeiro F da C, Cesar PF, Yoshimura HN. Influence of the finishing technique on surface roughness of dental porcelains with different microstructures. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 577- 583.
Tholt de Vasconcellos B, Miranda-Júnior WG, Prioli R, Thompson J, Oda M. Surface roughness in ceramics with different finishing techniques using atomic force microscope and profilometer. Oper Dent 2006; 31: 442-449.
Sonuglen M, Destan UI, Lambrecht FY, Ozturk B, Karadeniz S. Microbial adherence to a non precious alloy after plasma nitriding process. Int J Prosthodont 2006; 19: 202-204
Hahnel S, Rosentritt M, Handel G, Bürgers R. Surface characterization of dental ceramics and initial streptococcal adhesion in vitro. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 969-975.
Wright MD, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E, Thompson GA, Runyan DA. Comparison of three systems for the polishing of an ultra-low fusing dental porcelain. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 92: 486-490.
Chu FC, Frankel N, Smales RJ. Surface roughness and flexural strength of self-glazed, polished, and reglazed In-Ceram/ Vitadur Alpha porcelain laminates. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13: 66-71.
Manjuran NG, Sreelal T. An in vitro study to identify a ceramic polishing protocol effecting smoothness superior to glazed surface. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2014; 14: 219-227.
Kantrosky KZ, Scotti R, Valandro LF, Bottino MA, Koga-Ito CY, Jorge AO. Surface roughness and bacterial adherence to resin composites and ceramics. Oral Health Prev Dent 2009; 7: 29-32.
Kawai K, Urano M. Adherence of plaque components to different restorative materials. Oper Dent 2001; 26: 396-400.
Karayazgan B, Atay A, Saaracli MA, Gunay Y. Evaluation of Candida albicans formation on feldspatic porcelain subjected to four surface methods. Dent Mater J 2010; 29: 147-153.
Haralur SB. Evaluation of efficiency of manual polishing over outoglazed and overglazed porcelain and its effect on plaque accumulation. J Adv Prosthodont 2012; 4: 179-186.
Asai T, Kazama R, Fukushima M, Okiji T. Effect of overglazed and polished surface finishes on the compressive fracture strength of machinable ceramic materials. Dent Mater J 2010; 29: 661- 667.
Atay A, Oruc S, Ozen J, Sipahi C. Effect of accelerated aging on the color stability of feldspathic ceramic treated with various surface treatment. Quintessence Int 2008; 39: 603-609.
Sethi S, Kakade D, Jambhekar S, Jain V. An in vitro investigation to compare the surface roughness of autoglazed, reglazed and chair side polished surfaces of Ivoclar and vita feldspathic porcelain. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013; 13: 478-485.
Anmol C, Soni S. Effect of two different finishing systems on surface roughness of feldspathic and fluorapatite porcelains in ceramo-metal restorations: Comparative in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2014; 4: 22-28.
- Abstract Viewed: 238 times
- PDF Downloaded: 155 times