The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of denture-related stomatitis (DRS) in different attachment-retained overdenture wearers and its association with particular colonizing Candida species. Thirty-seven edentulous patients with implant-supported maxillary or mandibular overdentures were enrolled. A full clinical history was obtained, including details of patients' oral hygiene practices and the levels of erythema based on Newton's classification scale. Swabs were taken from the palate and investigated mycologically to identify the yeast colonies. Quantitative and qualitative microbiological assessments were performed, which included recording the total numbers of colonies (cfu), their color, and their morphological characteristics. Significant differences were found in cfu values between the attachment and inner surfaces of locator- and bar-retained overdentures (P < .05). Candida albicans was the most common species in both evaluations, being isolated from 81.3% of bar-retained overdentures and 38.1% of locator-retained overdentures. DRS developed in all patients using bar-retained overdentures but in only 71.4% of those using locator-retained overdentures. No statistically significant relationship was found between bar and locator attachments according to smoking habit, overnight removal, or plaque and gingival indices (P > .05).

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of denture-related stomatitis (DRS) in different attachment-retained overdenture wearers and its association with particular colonizing Candida species. Thirty-seven edentulous patients with implant-supported maxillary or mandibular overdentures were enrolled. A full clinical history was obtained, including details of their oral hygiene practices and the levels of erythema based on Newton's classification scale. Swabs were taken from the palate and investigated mycologically to identify the yeast colonies. Quantitative and qualitative microbiological assessments were performed, recording the total numbers of colonies (cfu), their color, and their morphological characteristics. Significant differences were found in cfu values from the attachment and inner surfaces of locator-and bar-retained overdentures (P < 0.05). Candida albicans was the most common species in both evaluations, being isolated from 81.3% of bar-retained overdentures and 38.1% of locator-retained overdentures. DRS developed in all patients using bar-retained overdentures, but in only 71.4% of those using locator-retained overdentures. No statistically significant relationship was found between bar and locator attachments according to smoking habit, overnight removal, or plaque and gingival indices (P > 0.05). ABSTRACTThe aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of denture-related stomatitis (DRS) in different attachment-retained overdenture wearers and its association with particular colonizing Candida species. Thirty-seven edentulous patients with implant-supported maxillary or mandibular overdentures were enrolled. A full clinical history was obtained, including details of their oral hygiene practices and the levels of erythema based on Newton's classification scale. Swabs were taken from the palate and investigated mycologically to identify the yeast colonies. Quantitative and qualitative microbiological assessments were performed, recording the total numbers of colonies (cfu), their color, and their morphological characteristics. Significant differences were found in cfu values from the attachment and inner surfaces of locator-and bar-retained overdentures (P < 0.05). Candida albicans was the most common species in both evaluations, being isolated from 81.3% of bar-retained overdentures and 38.1% of locator-retained overdentures. DRS developed in all patients using bar-retained overdentures, but in only 71.4% of those using locator-retained overdentures. No statistically significant relationship was found between bar and locator attachments according to smoking habit, overnight removal, or plaque and gingival indices (P > 0.05).

The chemical, physical, and morphological features of surfaces play a very crucial role in material properties including wettability, optical, adhesive, mechanical, and so on. Therefore, diagnosis of surface structures is very important for materials science. The properties of natural and fabricated material surfaces can be determined using characterization techniques. In this chapter, some of the most common characterization methods are given. Surface Characterization Methods X-ray Spectroscopy TechniquesThe discovery of X-rays in 1845 by Wilhelm Conrad Rontgen gave rise to significant scientific advancement that benefited a variety of fields by making the invisible to the visible. In 1901, Wilhelm Rontgen received the Nobel Prize in physics for the invention of X-rays. The discovery of X-ray led to significant improvement in the diagnosis for medical applications. In the years subsequent to this discovery, X-rays were used for military applications. Initially, the harmful effects of radiation were not comprehended. Later, it was observed that those who were exposed to X-ray radiation encountered severe burns and skin damages. Thomas Edison's assistant who worked extensively with X-rays, died of skin cancer in 1904. Then, the risk of X-ray radiation was fully understood and this led to the use of protection shields. Today, X-ray technology is being widely employed in numerous fields such as medicine, material analysis, and devices [1].X-rays are electromagnetic energy waves acting like light rays. X-rays have wavelengths in the angstrom range. Furthermore, X-rays are highly energetic and are employed not only to penetrate solids but also to probe their internal structure. As a result of the atom excitation via high energy photons or electrons, an electron is removed from the atom, leading to an electron hole at the inner orbit. These electron holes are filled by outer electrons. As a result

The aim of the study was to evaluate the measures taken in a dentistry faculty due to the COVID-19 (SARS-Cov-2) pandemic and their application methods and based to create a guide for infection control management in dentistry. After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, performed in the Dentistry Faculty of Erciyes University were only emergency treatments in the first 3 months (T1) and after this period, normalization procedures and routine treatments (T2) were performed by recruiting patients at much lower capacity than before the pandemic. COVID-19 infection and isolation status of all staff working in the hospital during these periods were recorded. The source of infection that reveals these situations is defined as an internal source (IS) from within the hospital and as an external-source (ES) from contact outside the hospital. In the T1 period, no physician had COVID-19 infection or was put into isolation. In the T2 period, 3 out of 176 physicians had COVID-19 infection due to ES, and a total of 12 physicians, 5 from IS and 7 from ES, were put into isolation. That there were no physicians, who had COVID-19 infection in the T1 and T2 time intervals due to IS, shows that the measures taken in our faculty were sufficient. We think that these rules, which were arranged separately for the needs of each department, in accordance with the pandemic conditions by our faculty's infection board, are an effective guide for dental clinics, oral and dental health polyclinics, hospitals, and dentistry faculties.

This study compared peri-implant vertical bone loss, the periodontal index, prosthodontic maintenance requirements and oral health-related quality of life of patients (OHQoL) using mandibular implant-supported overdentures with two different attachment systems after an average of 5 years of use.16 mandibular overdenture patients with magnet attachments (Group 3), 24 with implant-supported mandibular overdentures with Locator attachments (Group 2), and 25 conventional complete denture patients (Group I) were included in the study. The existing at least 5 years old dentures of all patients were evaluated for prosthodontic maintenance by the same prosthodontist and the patients were administered the OHIP-TR-14 questionnaire. Peri-implant tissue health was evaluated clinically in terms of plaque scores, bleeding scores, probing depth and gingival index. Radiographic evaluation was performed in terms of periimplant vertical bone loss. Radiographic evaluations were performed 5 year after overdenture insertion.There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of total OHIP-TR-14 scores (p &gt; 0.05). While the average vertical bone resorption measured in Group 2 at the end of 5 years was 1.38 mm, there was an average vertical bone loss of 1.45 mm in Group 3, but this difference was not statistically significant (p &gt; 0.05). Among the periodontal health indicators, there were no statistically significant differences in the mean values ​​for periodontal indexes.According to results of the study; there were no differences in peri-implant vertical bone loss in Group2  and 3, in periodontal health in mandibular overdentures with Group2 and 3, or between total OHIP-TR-14 scores of patients in all groups.