Limits...
Bacterial adhesion of porphyromonas gingivalis on provisional fixed prosthetic materials.

Zortuk M, Kesim S, Kaya E, Ozbilge H, Kiliç K, Cölgeçen O - Dent Res J (Isfahan) (2010)

Bottom Line: Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Dunnett t-tests.All tested materials were significantly rougher than glass (P < 0.05).Dentalon had the lowest fluorescence intensity among the provisional fixed prosthodontic materials.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.

ABSTRACT

Background: When provisional restorations are worn for long term period, the adhesion of bacteria becomes a primary factor in the development of periodontal diseases. The aims of this study were to evaluate the surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of four different provisional fixed prosthodon-tic materials.

Methods: Ten cylindrical specimens were prepared from bis-acrylic composites (PreVISION CB and Protemp 3 Garant), a light-polymerized composite (Revotek LC), and a polymethyl methacrylate-based (Dentalon) provisional fixed prosthodontic materials. Surface roughness was assessed by profilometry. The bacterial adhesion test was applied using Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis) and spectro-fluorometric method. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Dunnett t-tests.

Results: All tested materials were significantly rougher than glass (P < 0.05). Revotek LC had the greatest fluorescence intensity, PreVISION and Protemp 3 Garant had moderate values and all of them had significantly more bacterial adhesion compared to glass (P < 0.05). Dentalon had the lowest fluorescence intensity among the provisional fixed prosthodontic materials.

Conclusion: The quantity of bacterial adhesion and surface roughness differed among the assessed provisional fixed prosthodontic materials. The light-polymerized provisional material Revotek LC had rougher surface and more bacterial adhesion compared with the others.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Scanning electron micrograph shows the surface roughness of Protemp 3 Garant (profile width = 359.03 μm, 300X magnification)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3065340&req=5

Figure 2: Scanning electron micrograph shows the surface roughness of Protemp 3 Garant (profile width = 359.03 μm, 300X magnification)

Mentions: The Radata for the tested PFPMs are presented in Table 2. The surface roughness ranged from 1.10 ± 0.49 μm (Protemp 3 Garant, the smoothest one) to 2.30 ± 0.43 μm (Revotek LC, the roughest one). All of the PFPMs were significantly rougher than the glass with the Ra < 0.01 μm (P < 0.05). Figures 1 and 2 show the SEM photographs of these two materials, respectively, which indicate the rougher surface of Revotek LC.


Bacterial adhesion of porphyromonas gingivalis on provisional fixed prosthetic materials.

Zortuk M, Kesim S, Kaya E, Ozbilge H, Kiliç K, Cölgeçen O - Dent Res J (Isfahan) (2010)

Scanning electron micrograph shows the surface roughness of Protemp 3 Garant (profile width = 359.03 μm, 300X magnification)
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3065340&req=5

Figure 2: Scanning electron micrograph shows the surface roughness of Protemp 3 Garant (profile width = 359.03 μm, 300X magnification)
Mentions: The Radata for the tested PFPMs are presented in Table 2. The surface roughness ranged from 1.10 ± 0.49 μm (Protemp 3 Garant, the smoothest one) to 2.30 ± 0.43 μm (Revotek LC, the roughest one). All of the PFPMs were significantly rougher than the glass with the Ra < 0.01 μm (P < 0.05). Figures 1 and 2 show the SEM photographs of these two materials, respectively, which indicate the rougher surface of Revotek LC.

Bottom Line: Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Dunnett t-tests.All tested materials were significantly rougher than glass (P < 0.05).Dentalon had the lowest fluorescence intensity among the provisional fixed prosthodontic materials.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.

ABSTRACT

Background: When provisional restorations are worn for long term period, the adhesion of bacteria becomes a primary factor in the development of periodontal diseases. The aims of this study were to evaluate the surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of four different provisional fixed prosthodon-tic materials.

Methods: Ten cylindrical specimens were prepared from bis-acrylic composites (PreVISION CB and Protemp 3 Garant), a light-polymerized composite (Revotek LC), and a polymethyl methacrylate-based (Dentalon) provisional fixed prosthodontic materials. Surface roughness was assessed by profilometry. The bacterial adhesion test was applied using Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis) and spectro-fluorometric method. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Dunnett t-tests.

Results: All tested materials were significantly rougher than glass (P < 0.05). Revotek LC had the greatest fluorescence intensity, PreVISION and Protemp 3 Garant had moderate values and all of them had significantly more bacterial adhesion compared to glass (P < 0.05). Dentalon had the lowest fluorescence intensity among the provisional fixed prosthodontic materials.

Conclusion: The quantity of bacterial adhesion and surface roughness differed among the assessed provisional fixed prosthodontic materials. The light-polymerized provisional material Revotek LC had rougher surface and more bacterial adhesion compared with the others.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus