The Effect of Aging on the Roughness and Bacterial Adhesion of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Ceramics.
Bacterial adhesion
aging process
lithium disilicate
zirconia
Journal
Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists
ISSN: 1532-849X
Titre abrégé: J Prosthodont
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9301275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
accepted:
06
09
2020
pubmed:
10
9
2020
medline:
10
6
2021
entrez:
9
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This in vitro study was designed to compare bacterial adhesion to zirconia versus lithium disilicate crowns after artificial aging. Seventy-five discs were tested in this study: 25 Cr-Co base metal discs (control), 25 zirconia discs, and 25 lithium disilicate discs. Each sample was polished and glazed appropriately. The discs were subjected to 1000 thermal cycles between 5 and 55°C, whereby samples stayed in the bath for 20 seconds, at each temperature. Then, 10 µL of Streptococcus sanguinis suspension was placed on the discs. The samples were scanned for surface roughness before and after aging, and after incubation. Sp and Sa were measured with a confocal, visible light disk-scanning system (Sa expresses the difference in height of each point compared to the arithmetical mean of the surface. Sp is the height of the highest peak within the defined area). Optical density of the discs was evaluated by a spectrophotometer. One-way ANOVA was performed to assess differences after aging and incubation. Statistical analysis showed significant differences (p = 0.02) in surface roughness between the Cr-Co base metal, zirconia and lithium disilicate before and after aging. The mean Sa was 0.36 ± 0.12 µm, 0.638 ± 0.24 µm, and 1.23 ± 0.42 µm, respectively. Lithium disilicate had the highest surface roughness values. There was a significant difference (p = 0.001) after incubation. The mean and standard deviation surface roughness of Cr-Co base metal, zirconia and lithium disilicate were 0.99 ± 0.49 µm, 1.40 ± 0.46 µm, and 2.44 ± 1.21 µm, respectively. While no significant differences were found in the accumulation of S. sanguinis between zirconia and lithium disilicate, there was a significant difference (p = 0.02) in the optical density between these 2 test groups and the control group (metal). The optical density of metal (0.94 ± 0.15) was higher than for lithium disilicate (0.74 ± 0.10) and zirconia (0.75 ± 0.08). There was no statistical difference in bacterial adherence between lithium disilicate and zirconia. Dental crown materials differed significantly in terms of surface roughness and bacterial adhesion between Cr-Co base metal and zirconia and lithium disilicate. After aging and bacterial adherence, the zirconia discs had the smoothest surface, with similar bacterial accumulation as lithium disilicate; suggesting that lithium disilicate may be less sensitive to bacterial adhesion than zirconia.
Substances chimiques
lithia disilicate
0
Dental Porcelain
12001-21-7
Zirconium
C6V6S92N3C
zirconium oxide
S38N85C5G0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
440-446Informations de copyright
© 2020 by the American College of Prosthodontists.
Références
Hisbergues M, Vendeville S, Vendeville P. Zirconia: established facts and perspectives for a biomaterial in dental implantology. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;88:519-529
Bremer F, Grade S, Kohorst P, et al: In vivo biofilm formation on different dental ceramics. Quintessence Int 2011;42:565-574
Scarano A, Piattelli M, Caputi S, et al: Bacterial adhesion on commercially pure titanium and zirconium oxide disks: an in vivo human study. J Periodontol 2004;75:292-296
Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M: Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258-269
International Organization for Standardization. Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS) Surface texture: profile method Terms, definitions and surface texture parameters. ISO 4287:1997
Quirynen M, Bollen CM: The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:1-14
Vo DT, Arola D, Romberg E, et al: Adherence of Streptococcus mutans on lithium disilicate porcelain specimens. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:696-701
Brecx M, Theilade J, Attstrom R: An ultrastructural quantitative study of the significance of microbial multiplication during early dental plaque growth. J Periodont Res 1983;18:177-186
Souza JC, Mota RR, Sordi MB, et al: Biofilm formation on different materials used in oral rehabilitation. Braz Dent J 2016;27:141-147
Gale MS, Darvell BW: Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999 Feb;27:89-9913 ISO. Dental materials-testing of adhesion to tooth structure. Technical specification no. 11405; 2003.
ISO. Dental materials-guidance on testing of adhesion to tooth structure. Technical specification no. 11405; 2004.
McHugha EJ, Politia I, Al-Fodehb RS, et al: Implications of resin-based composite (RBC) restoration on cuspal deflection and microleakage score in molar teeth: placement protocol and restorative material. Dent Mater 2017;33:329-335
Xu P, Alves JM, Kitten T, et al: Genome of the opportunistic pathogen Streptococcus sanguinis. J Bacteriol 2007;189:3166-3175
Amer R, Kurklu D, Kateeb E, et al: Three-body wear potential of dental yttrium-stabilized zirconia ceramic after grinding, polishing, and glazing treatments. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1151-1155
Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, et al: Strength, fracture toughness and microstructure of a selection of all-ceramic materials. Part I. Pressable and alumina glass-infiltrated ceramics. Dent Mate 2004;20:441-448
Hamza TA, Alameldin AA, Elkouedi AY, et al: Effect of artificial accelerated aging on surface roughness and color stability of different ceramic restorations. Stomatolog Dis Sci 2017;1:8-14
Yuan JC, Barao VAR, Wee AG, et al: Effect of brushing and thermocycling on the shade and surface roughness of CAD-CAM ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:1000-1006
Nyvad B, Kilian M: Comparison of the initial streptococcal microflora on dental enamel in caries-active and in caries-inactive individuals. Caries Res 1990;24:267-272
Hahnel S, Rosentritt M, Handel G, et al: Surface characterization of dental ceramics and initial streptococcal adhesion in vitro. Dent Mater 2009;25:969-975
Bundy KJ, Butler MF, Hochman RF: An investigation of the bacteriostatic properties of pure metals. J Biomed Mater Res 1980;14:653-663
Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, et al: Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17(Suppl 2):68-81
Lawson NC, Janyavula S, Syklawer S, et al: Wear of enamel opposing zirconia and lithium disilicate after adjustment, polishing and glazing. J Dent 2014;42:1586-1591