Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2018; 12(04): 546-552
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_265_18
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Surface roughness implant-retained mandibular bar and ball joint overdentures and adherence of microorganisms

Valenzuela Rocío
1   University of Barcelone, Spain & Gastrovital, National Council Science Technology and Technological Innovation, Peru
,
Daniel Valenzuela
2   Jose Faustino Sanchez Carrion National University, Peru
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
23 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the surface roughness of the implant-retained mandibular bar overdenture (BOD) and the implant-retained mandibular ball joint overdenture (BJOD) in jaw and its relation with the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobe, in time 30 and 180 days in mouth. Materials and Methods: Five-systems titanium bar CARES® and synOcta® Straumann® Dental Implant System, Holding AG Inc., Basel, Switzerland (BOD), and five-systems joint ball Klockner® Implant System; Soadco Inc., Escaldes-Engordany; Andorra (BJOD), were used in two parallel groups of five participants, in an essay to simple blind person. To 30 and 180 days, the overdentures were withdrawn and evaluated the Ra: ųm. SJ-301® Mitutoyo Corporation Inc., Kanagawa, Japan, and the adhesion of microorganisms (colony-forming unit/ml). Results: The results were as follows: the Ra: Um (30th and 180th): BOD, 0.965–1.351; BJOD, 1.325–2.384. Adhesion: Molds and yeasts, BOD, 2.6 × 102 and 4.6 × 103; BJOD, 3.0 × 102 and 5.3 × 104. Adhesion: Mesophyll aerobe, BOD, 3.8 × 106 and 5.8 × 106; BJOD, 4.3 × 106 and 7.1 × 107. Conclusions: At 30 days (P = 0.489), there were no differences in BOD and BJOD for adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobe between both overdentures. At 180 days (P = 0.723), there were differences in the adhesion of mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe, being greater in BJOD.

Key words:

Bacterial adhesion - clinical studies/trials - implantology - overdenture - surface properties
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Stellingsma K, Slagter AP, Stegenga B, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ. Masticatory function in patients with an extremely resorbed mandible restored with mandibular implant-retained overdentures: Comparison of three types of treatment protocols. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32: 403-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Portmann M, Glauser R. Report of a case receiving full-arch rehabilitation in both jaws using immediate implant loading protocols: A 1-year resonance frequency analysis follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2006; 8: 25-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Visser A, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Implant-retained mandibular overdentures versus conventional dentures: 10 years of care and aftercare. Int J Prosthodont 2006; 19: 271-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Degidi M, Piattelli A. Immediately loaded bar-connected implants with an anodized surface inserted in the anterior mandible in a patient treated with diphosphonates for osteoporosis: A case report with a 12-month follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5: 269-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Elsyad MA, Ashmawy TM, Faramawy AG. The influence of resilient liner and clip attachments for bar-implant-retained mandibular overdentures on opposing maxillary ridge. A 5-year randomised clinical trial. J Oral Rehabil 2014; 41: 69-77
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 van Kampen F, Cune M, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: An in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 14: 720-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lang R, Rosentritt M, Behr M, Handel G. Fracture resistance of PMMA and resin matrix composite-based interim FPD materials. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 381-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Panyayong W, Oshida Y, Andres CJ, Barco TM, Brown DT, Hovijitra S. et al. Reinforcement of acrylic resins for provisional fixed restorations. Part III: Effects of addition of Titania and zirconia mixtures on some mechanical and physical properties. Biomed Mater Eng 2002; 12: 353-66
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Uzun G, Keyf F. The effect of fiber reinforcement type and water storage on strength properties of a provisional fixed partial denture resin. J Biomater Appl 2003; 17: 277-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Senna P, Vieira AP, Sotto-Maior B, Da Silva W, Cury A. Influence of inmersion time of denture cleansers on the surface roughness of resilient denture liners. Rev Odontol Cienc 2011; 26: 35-9
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Yap AU, Mah MK, Lye CP, Loh PL. Influence of dietary simulating solvents on the hardness of provisional restorative materials. Dent Mater 2004; 20: 370-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Guler AU, Yilmaz F, Kulunk T, Guler E, Kurt S. Effects of different drinks on stainability of resin composite provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 94: 118-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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: 258-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Berger JC, Driscoll CF, Romberg E, Luo Q, Thompson G. Surface roughness of denture base acrylic resins after processing and after polishing. J Prosthodont 2006; 15: 180-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC. Physico-chemical interactions in initial microbial adhesion and relevance for biofilm formation. Adv Dent Res 1997; 11: 24-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Radford DR, Challacombe SJ, Walter JD. Denture plaque and adherence of Candida albicans to denture-base materials in vivo and in vitro . Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 1999; 10: 99-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Daniluk T, Fiedoruk K, Sciepuk M, Zaremba ML, Rozkiewicz D, Cylwik-Rokicka D. et al. Aerobic bacteria in the oral cavity of patients with removable dentures. Adv Med Sci 2006; 51 (Suppl. 01) 86-90
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Busscher HJ, Uyen MH, van Pelt AW, Weerkamp AH, Arends J. Kinetics of adhesion of the oral bacterium Streptococcus sanguis CH3 to polymers with different surface free energies. Appl Environ Microbiol 1986; 51: 910-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Murtra I, Montalvillo A, Arcís RW, Murtra J. Mitutoyo Roughmeter. Surftest 301 Model. Dentum 1999; p. 31-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Keyf F, Etikan I. Evaluation of gloss changes of two denture acrylic resin materials in four different beverages. Dent Mater 2004; 20: 244-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mendonça MJ, Machado AL, Giampaolo ET, Pavarina AC, Vergani CE. Weight loss and surface roughness of hard chairside reline resins after toothbrushing: Influence of postpolymerization treatments. Int J Prosthodont 2006; 19: 281-7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Richmond R, Macfarlane TV, McCord JF. An evaluation of the surface changes in PMMA biomaterial formulations as a result of toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. Dent Mater 2004; 20: 124-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brusca MI, Chara O, Sterin-Borda L, Rosa AC. Influence of different orthodontic brackets on adherence of microorganisms in vitro . Angle Orthod 2007; 77: 331-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 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: 1-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Waltimo T, Tanner J, Vallittu P, Haapasalo M. Adherence of Candida albicans to the surface of polymethylmethacrylate – E glass fiber composite used in dentures. Int J Prosthodont 1999; 12: 83-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 He XY, Meurman JH, Kari K, Rautemaa R, Samaranayake LP. In vitro adhesion of Candida species to denture base materials. Mycoses 2006; 49: 80-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Yildirim MS, Hasanreisoglu U, Hasirci N, Sultan N. Adherence of Candida albicans to glow-discharge modified acrylic denture base polymers. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32: 518-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Ryan CS, Kleinberg I. Bacteria in human mouths involved in the production and utilization of hydrogen peroxide. Arch Oral Biol 1995; 40: 753-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tada A, Watanabe T, Yokoe H, Hanada N, Tanzawa H. Oral bacteria influenced by the functional status of the elderly people and the type and quality of facilities for the bedridden. J Appl Microbiol 2002; 93: 487-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Pinna A, Zanetti S, Sechi LA, Carta F. In vitro adherence of Staphylococcus epidermidis, Serratia marcescens, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to AcrySof intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 2005; 31: 2430-1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Shimizu K, Kobayakawa S, Tsuji A, Tochikubo T. Biofilm formation on hydrophilic intraocular lens material. Curr Eye Res 2006; 31: 989-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar