表面粗糙度和润湿性对添加剂、减法和常规方法制备的临时假体的微生物粘附性的影响。

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Zeynep Sahin, Nazire Esra Ozer, Abdulhamit Calı
{"title":"表面粗糙度和润湿性对添加剂、减法和常规方法制备的临时假体的微生物粘附性的影响。","authors":"Zeynep Sahin, Nazire Esra Ozer, Abdulhamit Calı","doi":"10.1111/eos.70027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The rising use of 3D-printed temporary prostheses calls for a deeper understanding of microbial adhesion to these prostheses, a topic that remains insufficiently explored. This study evaluates the surface properties and microbial adhesion of four types of temporary materials manufactured by different methods: two conventionally produced materials-poly(ethyl methacrylate) (PEMA) and bis-acryl composite (BA)-and two digitally fabricated materials-poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA, CAD/CAM milled) and difunctional methacrylate resin (3Dresin, 3D printed). A total of 120 specimens (n = 30 per material) were prepared for surface roughness, contact angle, and microbial adhesion tests using Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, and Candida albicans. Additionally, 12 separate specimens (one per microorganism for each material) were prepared for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis. The results revealed that BA and PEMA had higher contact angles than both PMMA and 3Dresin, with BA showing the highest surface roughness. S. aureus exhibited the highest adhesion across all materials. Surprisingly, 3Dresin, despite its low surface roughness, demonstrated the highest microbial adhesion. No statistically significant correlation was found between CFU counts and either surface roughness or contact angle. The study highlights that conventional materials are more hydrophobic than digitally produced ones, suggesting that 3Dresin materials may pose a higher risk of microbial colonization and biomaterial-associated infections.</p>","PeriodicalId":11983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Sciences","volume":" ","pages":"e70027"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of surface roughness and wettability on microbial adhesion of temporary prostheses made by additive, subtractive, and conventional methods.\",\"authors\":\"Zeynep Sahin, Nazire Esra Ozer, Abdulhamit Calı\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/eos.70027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The rising use of 3D-printed temporary prostheses calls for a deeper understanding of microbial adhesion to these prostheses, a topic that remains insufficiently explored. This study evaluates the surface properties and microbial adhesion of four types of temporary materials manufactured by different methods: two conventionally produced materials-poly(ethyl methacrylate) (PEMA) and bis-acryl composite (BA)-and two digitally fabricated materials-poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA, CAD/CAM milled) and difunctional methacrylate resin (3Dresin, 3D printed). A total of 120 specimens (n = 30 per material) were prepared for surface roughness, contact angle, and microbial adhesion tests using Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, and Candida albicans. Additionally, 12 separate specimens (one per microorganism for each material) were prepared for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis. The results revealed that BA and PEMA had higher contact angles than both PMMA and 3Dresin, with BA showing the highest surface roughness. S. aureus exhibited the highest adhesion across all materials. Surprisingly, 3Dresin, despite its low surface roughness, demonstrated the highest microbial adhesion. No statistically significant correlation was found between CFU counts and either surface roughness or contact angle. The study highlights that conventional materials are more hydrophobic than digitally produced ones, suggesting that 3Dresin materials may pose a higher risk of microbial colonization and biomaterial-associated infections.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Oral Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e70027\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Oral Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.70027\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Oral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.70027","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

3d打印临时假体的使用越来越多,需要对这些假体上的微生物粘附性有更深入的了解,这是一个尚未充分探索的话题。本研究评估了四种不同方法制造的临时材料的表面特性和微生物粘附性:两种常规生产材料-聚甲基丙烯酸乙酯(PEMA)和双丙烯酸基复合材料(BA),两种数字制造材料-聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA, CAD/CAM铣磨)和双功能甲基丙烯酸酯树脂(3D树脂,3D打印)。共制备120个样品(每种材料n = 30),使用金黄色葡萄球菌、变形链球菌和白色念珠菌进行表面粗糙度、接触角和微生物粘附试验。此外,准备了12个单独的样品(每种材料一个微生物)用于扫描电子显微镜(SEM)分析。结果表明,BA和PEMA的接触角高于PMMA和3d树脂,BA的表面粗糙度最高。金黄色葡萄球菌在所有材料中表现出最高的粘附性。令人惊讶的是,3d树脂,尽管其表面粗糙度低,却表现出最高的微生物粘附力。CFU计数与表面粗糙度或接触角之间没有统计学上的显著相关性。该研究强调,传统材料比数字生产的材料更具疏水性,这表明3d树脂材料可能会带来更高的微生物定植和生物材料相关感染的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of surface roughness and wettability on microbial adhesion of temporary prostheses made by additive, subtractive, and conventional methods.

The rising use of 3D-printed temporary prostheses calls for a deeper understanding of microbial adhesion to these prostheses, a topic that remains insufficiently explored. This study evaluates the surface properties and microbial adhesion of four types of temporary materials manufactured by different methods: two conventionally produced materials-poly(ethyl methacrylate) (PEMA) and bis-acryl composite (BA)-and two digitally fabricated materials-poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA, CAD/CAM milled) and difunctional methacrylate resin (3Dresin, 3D printed). A total of 120 specimens (n = 30 per material) were prepared for surface roughness, contact angle, and microbial adhesion tests using Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, and Candida albicans. Additionally, 12 separate specimens (one per microorganism for each material) were prepared for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis. The results revealed that BA and PEMA had higher contact angles than both PMMA and 3Dresin, with BA showing the highest surface roughness. S. aureus exhibited the highest adhesion across all materials. Surprisingly, 3Dresin, despite its low surface roughness, demonstrated the highest microbial adhesion. No statistically significant correlation was found between CFU counts and either surface roughness or contact angle. The study highlights that conventional materials are more hydrophobic than digitally produced ones, suggesting that 3Dresin materials may pose a higher risk of microbial colonization and biomaterial-associated infections.

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
European Journal of Oral Sciences
European Journal of Oral Sciences 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.30%
发文量
61
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Oral Sciences is an international journal which publishes original research papers within clinical dentistry, on all basic science aspects of structure, chemistry, developmental biology, physiology and pathology of relevant tissues, as well as on microbiology, biomaterials and the behavioural sciences as they relate to dentistry. In general, analytical studies are preferred to descriptive ones. Reviews, Short Communications and Letters to the Editor will also be considered for publication. The journal is published bimonthly.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信