Surface topography and bacterial adhesion of CAD/ CAM resin based materials after application of different surface finishing techniques

  • Raphael Meneghetti Hamerschmitt
  • Paulo Henrique Tomazinho
  • Kaíke Lessa Camporês
  • Carla Castiglia Gonzaga
  • Leonardo Fernandes da Cunha
  • Gisele Maria Correr

Abstract

Aim: This study evaluated the surface topography and bacterial adhesion of a hybrid ceramic and a nano ceramic resin composite after different surface finishes. Methods: Hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic, VITA - EN) and nano ceramic resin composite (Lava Ultimate, 3M/ESPE - LV) blocks of 12 x 14 x 18 mm were cut into 1
mm slices. Each slice was divided into four specimens (6 x 7 mm) that were randomly allocated into 4 groups (n=8) according to the surface finishing: CTL - without surface finish (control); DB - wear with a diamond bur; VT - polishing system for hybrid ceramic (VITA); and DD - polishing system for ceramics (Dedeco). The specimens were analyzed regarding surface roughness parameters (Ra, Rz, Rq), sterilized and subjected to bacterial adhesion. Representative specimens from each group were observed by SEM and Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy. Data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α=0.05). Results: EN had lower surface roughness and bacterial adhesion than LV (p<0.05), regardless of the surface finish. The highest values for all roughness parameters was observed in LVDB group, differing from the other groups,
which were not significantly different. Smaller bacterial adhesion values (CFU/mL) were observed for ENDD and ENVT, which differed significantly from the other groups, except ENCTL. For LV groups there was no significant difference between the different surface finishes (p>0.05). The type of material and surface finish
system significantly interfered with surface roughness parameters and bacterial adhesion. The hybrid ceramic performed better after polishing than the nano-ceramic resin. Conclusion: An adequate finishing/polishing technique should always be performed after any kind of adjustment to indirect restorations made with these materials tested.

References

1. Meier R, Hauser-Gerspach I, Lüthy H, Meyer J. Adhesion of oral streptococci to all-ceramics dental restorative
materials in vitro. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2008 Oct;19(10):3249-53. doi: 10.1007/s10856-008-3457-7.
2. Anami LC, Pereira CA, Guerra E, Souza ROA, Jorge AOC, Bottino MA. Morphology and bacterial
colonization of tooth/ceramic restoration interface after different cement excess removal
techniques. J Dent. 2012 Sep;40(9):742-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.05.005. Epub 2012 May 19.
3. Lassila LVJ, Garoushi S, Tanner J, Vallittu PK, Söderling E. Adherence of Streptococcus mutans to
Fiber-Reinforced Filling Composite and Conventional Restorative Materials. Open Dent J. 2009 Dec
4;3:227-32. doi: 10.2174/1874210600903010227.
4. Kawai K, Urano M, Ebisu S. Effect of surface roughness of porcelain on adhesion of bacteria and their
synthesizing glucans. J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Jun;83(6):664-7.
5. Boaventura JMC, Nishida R, Elossais AA, Lima DM, Reis JMSN, Campos EA, et al. Effect finishing and
polishing procedures on the surface roughness of IPS Empress 2 ceramic. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013
May-Jul;71(3-4):438-43. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2012.690570.
6. Akar GCK, Pekkan G, Çal E, Eskitaşçioğlu G, Özcan M. Effects of surface-finishing protocols on the
roughness, color change, and translucency of different ceramic systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2014
Aug;112(2):314-21. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.033.
7. Özarslan MM, Büyükkaplan UŞ, Barutcigil Ç, Arslan M, Türker N, Barutcigil K. Effects of different
surface finishing procedures on the change in surface roughness and color of a polymer infiltrated
ceramic network material. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016 Feb;8(1):16-20. doi: 10.4047/jap.2016.8.1.16.
8. Mörmann WH, Stawarczyk B, Ender A, Sener B, Attin T, Mehl A. Wear characteristics of current aesthetic
dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens
hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2013 Apr;20:113-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.003.
9. Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. Mechanical properties of polymerinfiltrated-ceramic-network materials:
official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials. Dent Mater. 2013 Apr;29(4):419-26.
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.01.002.
10. Dirxen C, Blunck U, Preissner S. Clinical performance of a new biomimetic double network material.
Open Dent J. 2013 Sep 6;7:118-22. doi: 10.2174/1874210620130904003.
11. Della Bona A, Corazza PH, Zhang Y. Characterization of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network
material. Dent Mater. 2014 May;30(5):564-9. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.02.019.
12. Koller M, Arnetzl GV, Holly L, Arnetzl G. Lava ultimate resin nano ceramic for CAD/ CAM:
customization case study. Inter J Computer Dent 2012;15(2):159-64.
13. da Silva TM, Salvia ACRD, Carvalho RF, Pagani C, Rocha DM, da Silva EG. Polishing
for glass ceramics: Which protocol? J Prosthodont Res. 2014 Jul;58(3):160-70.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2014.02.001.
14. Elsaka SE. Repair bond strength of resin composite to a novel CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic using
different repair systems. Dent Mater J. 2015;34(2):161-7. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2014-159.
15. Albero A, Pascual A, Camps I, Grau-Benitez M. Comparative characterization of a novel
cad-cam polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network. J Clin Exp Dent. 2015 Oct 1;7(4):e495-500.
doi: 10.4317/jced.52521.
16. Koizumi H, Saiki O, Nogawa H, Hiraba H, Okazaki T, Matsumura H. Surface roughness and gloss
of current CAD/CAM resin composites before and after toothbrush abrasion. Dent Mater J.
2015;34(6):881-7. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2015-177.
17. Rosentritt M, Hahnel S, Gröger G, Mühlfriedel B, Bürgers R, Handel G. Adhesion of Streptococcus
mutans to various dental materials in a laminar flow chamber system. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl
Biomater. 2008 Jul;86(1):36-44.
18. Aykent F, Yondem I, Ozyesil AG, Gunal SK, Avunduk MC, Ozkan S. Effect of different finishing
techniques for restorative materials on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion. J Prosthet Dent.
2010 Apr;103(4):221-7. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60034-0.
19. Awad D, Stawarczyk B, Liebermann A, Ilie N. Translucency of esthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM
materials and composite resins with respect to thickness and surface roughness. J Prosthet Dent.
2015 Jun;113(6):534-40. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.12.003.
20. Fasbinder DJ, Neiva GF. Surface Evaluation of Polishing Techniques for New Resilient CAD/CAM
Restorative Materials. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2016 Jan-Feb;28(1):56-66. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12174.
21. Vo DT, Arola D, Romberg E, Driscoll CF, Jabra-Rizk MA, Masri R. Adherence of Streptococcus
mutans on lithium disilicate porcelain specimens. J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Nov;114(5):696-701.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.06.017.
22. Guilbaud M, Piveteau P, Desvaux M, Brisse S, Briandet R. Exploring the diversity of Listeria
monocytogenes biofilm architecture by high-throughput confocal laser scanning microscopy and the
predominance of the honeycomb-like morphotype. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015 Mar;81(5):1813-9.
doi: 10.1128/AEM.03173-14.
23. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials
to the threshold surface for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997
Jul;13(4):258-69.
24. Rashid H. The effect of surface roughness on ceramics used in dentistry: A review of literature. Eur J
Dent. 2014 Oct;8(4):571-9. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.143646.
Published
2017-11-13
How to Cite
HAMERSCHMITT, Raphael Meneghetti et al. Surface topography and bacterial adhesion of CAD/ CAM resin based materials after application of different surface finishing techniques. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, [S.l.], p. e18135, nov. 2017. ISSN 1677-3225. Available at: <https://www.fop.unicamp.br/bjos/index.php/bjos/article/view/1331>. Date accessed: 22 july 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v17i0.8652650.
Section
Original Research

Most read articles by the same author(s)