Biofilm adhesion and surface roughness of PEEK VS Monolithic Zirconium: Comparative “An In-Vitro Study”
khalifa, F., hassanein, A., Hamza, T. (2022). Biofilm adhesion and surface roughness of PEEK VS Monolithic Zirconium: Comparative “An In-Vitro Study”. EKB Journal Management System, 2(2), 157-169. doi: 10.21608/jfcr.2022.158050.1030
farah tarek khalifa; ahmed hassanein; Tamer Abdelreheim Hamza. "Biofilm adhesion and surface roughness of PEEK VS Monolithic Zirconium: Comparative “An In-Vitro Study”". EKB Journal Management System, 2, 2, 2022, 157-169. doi: 10.21608/jfcr.2022.158050.1030
khalifa, F., hassanein, A., Hamza, T. (2022). 'Biofilm adhesion and surface roughness of PEEK VS Monolithic Zirconium: Comparative “An In-Vitro Study”', EKB Journal Management System, 2(2), pp. 157-169. doi: 10.21608/jfcr.2022.158050.1030
khalifa, F., hassanein, A., Hamza, T. Biofilm adhesion and surface roughness of PEEK VS Monolithic Zirconium: Comparative “An In-Vitro Study”. EKB Journal Management System, 2022; 2(2): 157-169. doi: 10.21608/jfcr.2022.158050.1030

Biofilm adhesion and surface roughness of PEEK VS Monolithic Zirconium: Comparative “An In-Vitro Study”

Journal of Fundamental and Clinical Research
Article 6, Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2022, Page 157-169  XML PDF (346.27 K)
Document Type: Original research articles
DOI: 10.21608/jfcr.2022.158050.1030
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
farah tarek khalifa email 1; ahmed hassanein2; Tamer Abdelreheim Hamza3
1fixed prosthodontics ,faculty of oral and dental medicine ,miu
2Professor of Fixed Prosthodontics , Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University ,Cairo, Egypt
3Crown and Bridge, Faculty of Dentistry, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
Abstract
ABSRACT:
Background: PEEK material has been widely used recently, it serves multiple advantages being biocompatible, light material and has modulous of elasticity close to bone. It is used for fabrication of fixed partial dentures, implants abutment and superstructure. However, its surface roughness and bacterial adhesion needs further investigations. Aim: Evaluate surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of zirconia and PEEK. Materials and methods: A total of ten samples were obtained from PEEK and Zirconia where 5 samples were obtained from each material and sliced into discs. Polishing of the samples was done followed by surface roughness measurement for each disc. This was followed by incubating the samples in bacterial suspension to prepare them for bacterial adhesion testing.Results: Results showed that PEEK (0.52±0.06) had a significantly higher mean value than Zirconia (0.23±0.04) (p < 0.001). Regarding bacterial adhesion test, PEEK showed higher adhesion values with 19.00±1.41, 6.20±1.30 and 5.66±0.44 for Streptococcus sangius, Streptococcus mutans and Candida albicans respectively whereas zirconia had bacterial adhesion values of 7.60±3.58, 3.60±0.55 and 2.80±0.84 for Streptococcus sangius, Streptococcus mutans and Candida albicans respectively. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study we concluded that Zirconia can provide smoother surfaces than that of PEEK. Moreover, bacterial adhesion on surfaces of PEEK exceeded that of Zirconia.
Keywords
Keywords: PEEK; BioHPP; Zirconia; Surface roughness; Bacterial adhesion
Statistics
Article View: 197
PDF Download: 322