Rivera GRV, Méndez MR, Escalante BSA, Cornejo PMA, Nishimura IAT, Oliver PR

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 142-146
PDF size: 294.53 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Conventional finishing and polishing of denture bases should reduce residual surface roughness to achieve a smooth, soft, shiny surface and so reduce bacterial adhesion. Objective: To compare the effect on the surface roughness of three acrylic resin denture base materials—ProBase-Hot (PH), NicTone (NT), and Lucitone 199 (LT)—of conventional polishing and finishing. Material and Methods: A sample of 27 resin denture base materials, PH, NT, and LT (n = 9), were subjected to finishing and polishing as follows: side A finished using a tungsten carbide drill, and side B using conventional finishing and polishing. Surface roughness was subsequently measured using a profilometer and images obtained using a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) at a magnification of 35X. Baseline and post-treatment surface roughness were recorded for both sides. Using SPSS 18.0 statistics software, data were analyzed by means of the paired t-test and independent t-test (α 0.05). Results: For LT, the post-treatment roughness was 0.183 µm; for PH it was 0.217 µm, and for NT, 0.329 µm (p = 0.001). The LT and PH groups showed a significant reduction in roughness after polishing using the conventional system and a more uniform surface appearance under SEM observation. Conclusions: In the case of LT, conventional finishing and polishing results in a low level of roughness with over 25% of the pits and pores on its surface removed. In the case of NT, the surface displayed a greater number of pits, grooves, and scratches.

REFERENCES

1. Morrow RM, Brown CE Jr, Stansbury BE, DeLorimier JA, Powell JM, Rudd KD. Compatibility of alginate impression materials and dental stones. J Prosthet Dent. 1971; 25: 556-566.

2. Radford DR, Sweet SP, Challacombe SJ, Walter JD. Adherence of Candida albicans to denture-base materials with different surface finishes. J Dent. 1998; 26: 557-583.

3. Yamauchi M, Yamamoto K, Wakabayashi M, Kawano J. In vitro adherence of microorganisms to denture base resin with different surface texture. Dent Mater J. 1990; 9: 19-24.

4. Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, Schepers E, Quirynen M, Van Steenberghe D. The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7: 201-211.

5. Morgan TD, Wilson M. The effects of surface roughness and type of denture acrylic on biofilm formation by Streptococcus oralis in a constant depth film fermentor. J Apply Microbiol. 2001; 91: 47-53.

6. Rahal JS, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Nóbilo MA. Surface roughness of acrylic resins submitted to mechanical and chemical polishing. J Oral Rehabil. 2004; 31: 1075-1079.

7. O’Donnell EF, Radford DR, Sinclair CG, Clark RK. Chairside polishing of heat-cured acrylic resin: an SEM and EDA study. Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16: 233-238.

8. Ábalos C. Adhesión bacteriana a biomateriales. Av Odontoestomatol. 2005; 21: 347-353.

9. Kuhar M, Funduk N. Effects of polishing techniques on the surface roughness of acrylic denture base resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93: 76-85.

10. 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: 180-186.

11. Verran J, Maryan CJ. Retention of Candida albicans on acrylic resin and silicone of different surface topography. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 77: 535-539.

12. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, Van Steenberghe D. The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: short-term observations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11: 169-78.

13. Anusavice KJ, Antonson SA. Materiales para acabado y pulido. En: Anusavice KJ. Ciencia de los Materiales Dentales. Madrid: Elsevier; 2004: p. 351-376.

14. Hinojosa M, Reyes ME. La rugosidad de las superficies: topometría. Ingenierías. 2001; 4: 27-33.