| Literature DB >> 31309119 |
Maciej Dobrzynski1, Magdalena Pajaczkowska2, Joanna Nowicka2, Aleksander Jaworski1, Piotr Kosior1, Maria Szymonowicz3, Piotr Kuropka4, Zbigniew Rybak3, Zdzislaw A Bogucki5, Jaroslaw Filipiak6, Sara Targonska7, Aneta Ciupa-Litwa7, Anna Han7, Rafal J Wiglusz7.
Abstract
In the article has been presented an analysis of susceptibility of selected dental materials, made in the CAD/CAM technology. The morphology and structural properties of selected dental materials and their composites were determined by using XRPD (X-ray powder diffraction) techniques, as well as the IR (infrared) spectroscopy. Moreover, an adhesion as well as development of biofilm by oral microorganisms has been studied. It has been shown that a degree of the biofilm development on the tested dental materials depended on microorganism genus and species. Streptococcus mutans has demonstrated the best adhesion to the tested materials in comparison with Candida albicans and Lactobacillus rhamnosus. However, the sintered materials such as IPS e.max® and the polished IPS e.max® have showed the best "anti-adhesive properties" in relation to S. mutans and L. rhamnosus that have not formed the biofilm on the polished IPS e.max® sample. Furthermore, S. mutans have not formed the biofilm on both surfaces. On the contrary to S. mutans and L. rhamnosus, C. albicans has demonstrated the adhesive properties in relation to the above-mentioned surfaces. Moreover, in contrast to S. mutans and C. albicans, L. rhamnosus has not formed the biofilm on the polished IPS Empress material.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31309119 PMCID: PMC6594334 DOI: 10.1155/2019/9130806
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Composition and properties of dental materials.
| Material | Manufacturer | Composition and properties |
|---|---|---|
| IPS e.max® | Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein | lithium disilicate glass ceramics SiO2, Li2O, K2O, P2O5, SiO2, ZnO |
|
| ||
| Vita Enamic | Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Säckingen, Germany | hybrid blend - consists of 86% of ceramics and 14% of polymer network fibres penetrating it [ |
|
| ||
| IPS Empress | Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein | Leucite glass ceramics |
|
| ||
| IPS Empress Multi | Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein | Leucite-reinforced glass ceramics [ |
Figure 1Dental material used in the study: 1: Vita Enamic; 2: Vita Enamic - polished; 3: IPS Empress Multi; 4: IPS Empress Multi - polished; 5: IPS Empress; 6: IPS Empress - polished; 7: IPS e.max® before sintering; 8: IPS e.max® - polished before sintering; 9: IPS e.max® - after sintering; 10: IPS e.max® - polished after sintering.
Figure 2A scheme for determining the contact angle Θ of a solid surface.
Figure 3Samples of dental materials in the suspension of the strain of S. mutans. (sample photo) 1: Vita Enamic; 2: polished Vita Enamic; 3: IPS Empress Multi; 4: polished IPS Empress Multi; 5: IPS Empress; 6: polished IPS Empress.
Figure 4X-ray powder diffraction patterns of the Vita Enamic.
Figure 5X-ray powder diffraction of the samples IPS Empress CAD and IPS Empress Multi CAD correlated with COD pattern.
Figure 6X-ray powder diffraction of the samples IPS e-max CAD and IPS e-max CAD sintered at 800°C correlated with COD pattern.
Figure 7IR-ATR spectra of the studied materials: (a) hybrid blend and Leucite glass ceramics as well as (b) lithium disilicate glass ceramics.
The mean values of the contact angle Θ and standard deviation SD.
| Material | Sample | Contact angle Θ [0] | SD [0] |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vita Enamic | 1 | 53.58 | 1.61 |
| 2 | 43.94 | 1.23 | |
|
| |||
| IPS Empress | 1 | 7.48 | 1.36 |
|
| |||
| IPS Empress Multi | 1 | 32.58 | 2.46 |
| 2 | 35.94 | 1.99 | |
|
| |||
| IPS e-max after sintering | 1 | 30.52 | 3.81 |
| 2 | 45.02 | 2.44 | |
|
| |||
| IPS e-max before sintering | 1 | 31.18 | 1.81 |
| 2 | 47.56 | 2.11 | |
Figure 8Macroscopic image of the colony of fungi, streptococci, and bacilli desorbed from the surface of dental materials under the influence of saponin. A: non-polished material; B: polished material.
Figure 9Quantitative assessment of adhesive properties of the analysed strains in relation to the selected dental materials. All the data in the groups were significantly different in statistical analysis at p≤0.05.
Number of colony-forming units per millilitre of the suspension (cfu/mL).
| No. | Dental material |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| cfu/mL | cfu/mL | cfu/mL | ||
| 1 | Vita Enamic | 1.3x102 | 4.1x105 | 5.1x103 |
|
| ||||
| 2 | polished Vita Enamic | 2.0x102 | 1.1x106 | 2.0 x102 |
|
| ||||
| 3 | IPS Empress Multi | 2.0x104 | 8.5x105 | 8.7x103 |
|
| ||||
| 4 | polished IPS Empress Multi | 1.45x104 | 5.7x105 | 3.7x104 |
|
| ||||
| 5 | IPS Empress | 3.07x104 | 2.8x105 | 1.0x102 |
|
| ||||
| 6 | polished IPS Empress | 6.0x103 | 1.1x106 | 0 |
|
| ||||
| 7 | IPS e.max® | 9.8x103 | 1.0x104 | 0 |
|
| ||||
| 8 | polished IPS e.max® | 7.1x103 | 1.0x105 | 0 |
|
| ||||
| 9 | sintered IPS e.max® | 3.99x102 | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||||
| 10 | polished and sintered IPS e.max® | 4.99x102 | 0 | 1.0x102 |
Figure 10Image of cells on the surface of the tested materials after the use of rhodamine B and acridine orange (AO) obtained from the fluorescent microscope.