Monolithic Ceramics: Effect of Finishing Techniques on Surface Properties, Bacterial Adhesion and Cell Viability

Piva, Amanda Maria de Oliveira Dal; Contreras, Lpc; Ribeiro, Felipe de Camargo; Anami, Lilian Costa; Camargo, Samira Esteves Afonso; Jorge, Aoc; Bottino, Marco Antônio

doi:10.2341/17-011-l

Cited by 64 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, it is suggested that there will be no fracture occurrence during occlusion. These results may be supported by similar findings in the literature for such materials [7,8,41] For posterior monolithic crowns, different classes of materials may be used such as: acrylic resin generally used for temporary prosthesis; Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) polymer is an alternative resilient material [42], a hybrid ceramic that emerged with the objective of associating the composite resin and feldspathic ceramic qualities; zirconia reinforced lithium silicate, a material structurally similar to lithium disilicate reinforced with zirconia particles [22,43,44]; lithium disilicate [45]; noble metal alloys; yttria-tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (YTZP); and alumina-based ceramics are some possible treatment examples to be found in an oral environment. The higher Table 2 -Tensile strength of the materials simulated in this study, stress peak, average stress, stress concentration ratio and failure risks for crown and cementing line.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

CAD-FEA modeling and analysis of different full crown monolithic restorations

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

CAD-FEA modeling and analysis of different full crown monolithic restorations

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After the implants’ osseointegration period, second stage surgery requires remodelling the marginal gingival tissues (mainly keratinocytes and fibroblasts) around transgingival abutments [ 1 ]. Correct remodelling is essential for direct cellular contact at the level of the implant-abutment interface, which results in a correct mucosal seal [ 2 ], avoids apical migration of the junctional epithelium and bone resorption [ 3 ], and reduces bacterial adhesion on the surface [ 4 , 5 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Cytomorphometry and Early Cell Response of Human Gingival Fibroblast (HGFs) between Zirconium and New Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Ceramics (ZLS)

Rizo-Gorrita

Luna-Oliva

Serrera-Figallo

et al. 2018

IJMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics (ZLS) could be a viable alternative to zirconium (Y-TZP) in the manufacture of implantological abutments—especially in aesthetic cases—due to its good mechanical, optical, and biocompatibility properties. Although there are several studies on the ZLS mechanical properties, there are no studies regarding proliferation, spreading, or cytomorphometry. We designed the present study which compares the surface, cellular proliferation, and cellular morphology between Y-TZP (Vita YZ® T [Vita Zahnfabrik (Postfach, Germany)]) and ZLS (Celtra® Duo [Degudent (Hanau-Wolfgang, Germany)]). The surface characterization was performed with energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and optical profilometry. Human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) were subsequently cultured on both materials and early cellular response and cell morphology were compared through nuclear and cytoskeletal measurement parameters using confocal microscopy. The results showed greater proliferation and spreading on the surface of Y-TZP. This could indicate that Y-TZP continues to be a gold standard in terms of transgingival implant material: Nevertheless, more in vitro and in vivo research is necessary to confirm the results obtained in this study.

show abstract

“…While much information is available on bacterial colonization of dental ceramic materials (Al‐Ahmad et al, 2010; van Brakel et al, 2011; Do Nascimento et al, 2013; Egawa, Miura, Kato, Saito, & Yoshinari, 2013; Hahnel et al, 2009; Lee et al, 2011; de Oliveira et al, 2012; Rosentritt et al, 2009; Sardin, Morrier, Benay, & Barsotti, 2004; Scotti et al, 2007; Viitaniemi, Abdulmajeed, Sulaiman, Soderling, & Narhi, 2017; Yamane et al, 2013), less is known about fungal adherence to zirconia surfaces (Burgers et al, 2010; Dal Piva et al, 2018; do Nascimento, Pita, Pedrazzi, de Albuquerque Junior, & Ribeiro, 2013; Ehrman et al, 2006; Li et al, 2012). This in vitro study intended to characterize the surface properties such as roughness and surface‐free energy of glazed and polished monolithic yttria‐stabilized zirconia (Y‐TZ P ) polycrystal ceramics and to evaluate the ability of C. albicans and salivary bacteria, Staphylococcus epidermidis, mixed with C. albicans , respectively, to adhere to these substrata.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro adherence of Candida albicans to zirconia surfaces

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study aimed to characterize surface properties such as roughness (Ra) and surface‐free energy (SFE) of glazed and polished yttria‐stabilized zirconia and to evaluate in vitro adherence of fungus Candida albicans and salivary bacteria, Staphylococcus epidermidis, mixed with C. albicans to these substrata. Additionally, the influence of salivary proteins (albumin, mucin and α‐amylase) on yeast adhesion was studied. Material and methods Ra and SFE of glazed and polished zirconia discs were measured. Specimens were wetted with saliva and salivary proteins prior to incubation with C. albicans and mixed suspension of C. albicans and S. epidermidis for 24 hr, respectively. Microbial adhesion was quantified by counting colony‐forming units (CFU). Differences in physicochemical properties were proved by t test. “Linear mixed model” with the factors “type of surface” and “wetting media” was applied to analyse the effects on fungal adhesion (p < .05). Results SFE and Ra of glazed specimens were significantly higher than corresponding values of polished ones. The wetting media significantly changed the fungal binding (p = .0016). Significantly higher quantities of adhering fungi were found after mucin incubation compared to saliva (p = .004). For the factor “surface” as well as the interaction between “surface” and “wetting media,” no statistically significant differences have been found. In mixed suspension, the growth of Candida was completely prevented. Conclusions Glazed and polished zirconia differs in terms of physicochemical surface properties. These differences appear to be modulated by pellicle coating affecting the biomass of adhered Candida. Mucin seems to be good binding sites for adhesion of C. albicans.

show abstract

Monolithic Ceramics: Effect of Finishing Techniques on Surface Properties, Bacterial Adhesion and Cell Viability

Abstract: Glazed surfaces have a greater roughness and tend to accumulate more biofilm. Polished surfaces have higher SFE; however, they are temporarily cytotoxic.

Cited by 64 publications

References 27 publications

CAD-FEA modeling and analysis of different full crown monolithic restorations

CAD-FEA modeling and analysis of different full crown monolithic restorations

Comparison of Cytomorphometry and Early Cell Response of Human Gingival Fibroblast (HGFs) between Zirconium and New Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Ceramics (ZLS)

In vitro adherence of Candida albicans to zirconia surfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About