义齿基托材料的不同抛光方法对微生物附着力和表面粗糙度的影响

Sadi Yarar, Y. Değer, S. Tekin
{"title":"义齿基托材料的不同抛光方法对微生物附着力和表面粗糙度的影响","authors":"Sadi Yarar, Y. Değer, S. Tekin","doi":"10.5577/jomdi.e230351","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of various polishing processes applied to different types of PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate) denture base materials on the surface roughness and microbial adhesion of the base material. Methods: Sixty specimens each were prepared from heat-polymerized conventional PMMA (G), heat-polymerized injectable PMMA (E), and prepolymerized CAD/CAM PMMA (C) denture base materials. All sample surfaces were sanded with 800, 1000, 1200, and 2500 grit silicone carbide abrasives. The specimens of each denture base material were divided into three subgroups (n=20) in which different polishing methods were applied. The first group was mechanically polished (M), and the other two groups were chemically polished with light polymerized glaze liquids [Palaseal (Ps), Optiglaze Color (Og)]. A profilometer device was used to evaluate the surface roughness. Colony counting was performed to evaluate bacterial colonization after one day. The data obtained from all these measurements were evaluated using an analysis of variance, and Bonferroni corrected test was used for multiple comparisons of means (p=0.05). The interaction between surface roughness and bacterial colonization was examined by the Pearson correlation test. Regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship between them. Results: When PMMA base materials were compared, the lowest average surface roughness (Ra) values and bacterial colonization values were obtained in Group C. When polishing methods were compared, the lowest average surface roughness values were obtained in Group M. As a result of bacterial colonization measurement, lower colonization values were obtained with standardized mechanical polishing compared to other groups. Conclusion: There was no difference between the different PMMA base materials in terms of surface roughness, but there were statistical differences in bacterial colonization. The results of our study showed that mechanical polishing gave better results than light-activated glazing agents.   How to cite this article: Yarar S, Değer Y, Tekin S. Effect of different polishing methods applied to denture base materials on microbial adhesion and surface roughness. J Med Dent Invest 2023; 4: e230351. https://doi.org/10.5577/jomdi.e230351","PeriodicalId":415108,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical and Dental Investigations","volume":"56 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of different polishing methods applied to denture base materials on microbial adhesion and surface roughness\",\"authors\":\"Sadi Yarar, Y. Değer, S. Tekin\",\"doi\":\"10.5577/jomdi.e230351\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of various polishing processes applied to different types of PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate) denture base materials on the surface roughness and microbial adhesion of the base material. Methods: Sixty specimens each were prepared from heat-polymerized conventional PMMA (G), heat-polymerized injectable PMMA (E), and prepolymerized CAD/CAM PMMA (C) denture base materials. All sample surfaces were sanded with 800, 1000, 1200, and 2500 grit silicone carbide abrasives. The specimens of each denture base material were divided into three subgroups (n=20) in which different polishing methods were applied. The first group was mechanically polished (M), and the other two groups were chemically polished with light polymerized glaze liquids [Palaseal (Ps), Optiglaze Color (Og)]. A profilometer device was used to evaluate the surface roughness. Colony counting was performed to evaluate bacterial colonization after one day. The data obtained from all these measurements were evaluated using an analysis of variance, and Bonferroni corrected test was used for multiple comparisons of means (p=0.05). The interaction between surface roughness and bacterial colonization was examined by the Pearson correlation test. Regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship between them. Results: When PMMA base materials were compared, the lowest average surface roughness (Ra) values and bacterial colonization values were obtained in Group C. When polishing methods were compared, the lowest average surface roughness values were obtained in Group M. As a result of bacterial colonization measurement, lower colonization values were obtained with standardized mechanical polishing compared to other groups. Conclusion: There was no difference between the different PMMA base materials in terms of surface roughness, but there were statistical differences in bacterial colonization. The results of our study showed that mechanical polishing gave better results than light-activated glazing agents.   How to cite this article: Yarar S, Değer Y, Tekin S. Effect of different polishing methods applied to denture base materials on microbial adhesion and surface roughness. J Med Dent Invest 2023; 4: e230351. https://doi.org/10.5577/jomdi.e230351\",\"PeriodicalId\":415108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical and Dental Investigations\",\"volume\":\"56 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical and Dental Investigations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5577/jomdi.e230351\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical and Dental Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5577/jomdi.e230351","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们的研究旨在探讨不同类型 PMMA(聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯)义齿基托材料的各种抛光工艺对基托材料表面粗糙度和微生物附着力的影响。方法:从热聚合传统 PMMA(G)、热聚合可注射 PMMA(E)和预聚合 CAD/CAM PMMA(C)义齿基托材料中各制备 60 个试样。所有试样表面均使用 800、1000、1200 和 2500 粗细度的碳化硅磨料进行打磨。每种义齿基托材料的试样被分为三组(n=20),分别采用不同的抛光方法。第一组是机械抛光(M),另外两组是用轻聚合釉液[Palaseal (Ps)、Optiglaze Color (Og)]进行化学抛光。使用轮廓仪评估表面粗糙度。一天后,进行菌落计数以评估细菌定植情况。采用方差分析对所有这些测量数据进行评估,并使用 Bonferroni 校正检验对均值进行多重比较(P=0.05)。表面粗糙度与细菌定植之间的交互作用通过皮尔逊相关检验进行检验。进行回归分析以确定两者之间的关系。结果:比较 PMMA 基底材料时,C 组获得的平均表面粗糙度 (Ra) 值和细菌定植值最低;比较抛光方法时,M 组获得的平均表面粗糙度值最低。结论不同的 PMMA 基底材料在表面粗糙度方面没有差异,但在细菌定植方面存在统计学差异。我们的研究结果表明,机械抛光比光激活上光剂的效果更好。 如何引用本文:Yarar S, Değer Y, Tekin S. 义齿基托材料不同抛光方法对微生物附着力和表面粗糙度的影响。J Med Dent Invest 2023; 4: e230351. https://doi.org/10.5577/jomdi.e230351
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of different polishing methods applied to denture base materials on microbial adhesion and surface roughness
Aim: The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of various polishing processes applied to different types of PMMA (polymethyl methacrylate) denture base materials on the surface roughness and microbial adhesion of the base material. Methods: Sixty specimens each were prepared from heat-polymerized conventional PMMA (G), heat-polymerized injectable PMMA (E), and prepolymerized CAD/CAM PMMA (C) denture base materials. All sample surfaces were sanded with 800, 1000, 1200, and 2500 grit silicone carbide abrasives. The specimens of each denture base material were divided into three subgroups (n=20) in which different polishing methods were applied. The first group was mechanically polished (M), and the other two groups were chemically polished with light polymerized glaze liquids [Palaseal (Ps), Optiglaze Color (Og)]. A profilometer device was used to evaluate the surface roughness. Colony counting was performed to evaluate bacterial colonization after one day. The data obtained from all these measurements were evaluated using an analysis of variance, and Bonferroni corrected test was used for multiple comparisons of means (p=0.05). The interaction between surface roughness and bacterial colonization was examined by the Pearson correlation test. Regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship between them. Results: When PMMA base materials were compared, the lowest average surface roughness (Ra) values and bacterial colonization values were obtained in Group C. When polishing methods were compared, the lowest average surface roughness values were obtained in Group M. As a result of bacterial colonization measurement, lower colonization values were obtained with standardized mechanical polishing compared to other groups. Conclusion: There was no difference between the different PMMA base materials in terms of surface roughness, but there were statistical differences in bacterial colonization. The results of our study showed that mechanical polishing gave better results than light-activated glazing agents.   How to cite this article: Yarar S, Değer Y, Tekin S. Effect of different polishing methods applied to denture base materials on microbial adhesion and surface roughness. J Med Dent Invest 2023; 4: e230351. https://doi.org/10.5577/jomdi.e230351
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信