PREVELANCE OF ORAL AND RESPIRATORY MICROORGANISMS ON THE CAD-CAM VERSUS PRESS FORM OF POLY-ETHER-ETHER KETONE MATERIAL FOR ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHESIS
Emam, N., el-deen, F., Abdel-salam, S. (2019). PREVELANCE OF ORAL AND RESPIRATORY MICROORGANISMS ON THE CAD-CAM VERSUS PRESS FORM OF POLY-ETHER-ETHER KETONE MATERIAL FOR ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHESIS. EKB Journal Management System, 44(3), 38-44. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.63554
Nourhan S. Emam; Faten S. el-deen; Showikar M. Abdel-salam. "PREVELANCE OF ORAL AND RESPIRATORY MICROORGANISMS ON THE CAD-CAM VERSUS PRESS FORM OF POLY-ETHER-ETHER KETONE MATERIAL FOR ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHESIS". EKB Journal Management System, 44, 3, 2019, 38-44. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.63554
Emam, N., el-deen, F., Abdel-salam, S. (2019). 'PREVELANCE OF ORAL AND RESPIRATORY MICROORGANISMS ON THE CAD-CAM VERSUS PRESS FORM OF POLY-ETHER-ETHER KETONE MATERIAL FOR ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHESIS', EKB Journal Management System, 44(3), pp. 38-44. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.63554
Emam, N., el-deen, F., Abdel-salam, S. PREVELANCE OF ORAL AND RESPIRATORY MICROORGANISMS ON THE CAD-CAM VERSUS PRESS FORM OF POLY-ETHER-ETHER KETONE MATERIAL FOR ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHESIS. EKB Journal Management System, 2019; 44(3): 38-44. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.63554

PREVELANCE OF ORAL AND RESPIRATORY MICROORGANISMS ON THE CAD-CAM VERSUS PRESS FORM OF POLY-ETHER-ETHER KETONE MATERIAL FOR ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL PROSTHESIS

Alexandria Dental Journal
Article 7, Volume 44, Issue 3, December 2019, Page 38-44  XML PDF (554.59 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.63554
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Nourhan S. Emam email orcid 1; Faten S. el-deen2; Showikar M. Abdel-salam3
1Dentist at Ministry of Health, Alexandria, Egypt
2Professor of Removable prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
3Professor of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Biofilm formation differs in accordance to material type and processing technique, which has a crucial impact on maxillofacial prosthetic materials’ practicability. OBJECTIVES: to compare the prevalence of the upper respiratory tract and oral microbial flora colonization on the two commercially available forms of polyetheretherketone (modified PEEK); the conventional press form and the CAD-CAM form. MATERIALS AND METHODS: : forty eight circular discs, were processed forming four groups: Group I: twelve BioHPP discs were prepared with CAD-CAM form, Group II: twelve BioHPP discs with conventional press form, Group III: twelve heat polymerized poly methyl meth acrylate (PMMA) to mimic the polished surface Group IV: twelve heat cured PMMA to mimic the fitting surface. Microbiological procedures were performed including microbiological sampling, isolation, purification and identification, biofilm formation and assessment of the normal oral and respiratory flora on modified PEEK and PMMA discs. RESULTS: Acrylic resin fitting surface group had the highest biofilm formation when compared with the three other groups. No statistical significant difference was found between each pair of the three remaining groups, CAD-CAM BioHPP group showed the lowest biofilm formation of all groups according to mathematical data, but it didn’t approach the level of being statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both BioHPP processing techniques were positive for biofilm formation, though BioHPP CAD-CAM showed a rougher surface than pressed BioHPP, it showed the least biofilm formation of all groups. Fitting surface of acrylic resin group showed the worst results for biofilm formation
Keywords
Biofilm; PEEK; Acrylic resin; Respiratory flora
References
  1. Meenakshi A, Shah D. The obturator prostheses for maxillectomy. SRM J Res Dent Sci. 2012;3:193-7.
  2. Morgan T, Wilson M. The effects of surface roughness and type of denture acrylic on biofilm formation by Streptococcus oralis in a constant depth film fermentor. J Appl Microbiol. 2001;91:47-53.
  3. da Silva PMB, Acosta EJTR, de Rezende Pinto L, Graeff M, Spolidorio DMP, Almeida RS, et al. Microscopical analysis of Candida albicans biofilms on heat‐polymerised acrylic resin after chlorhexidine gluconate and sodium hypochlorite treatments. Mycoses. 2011;54:E712-7.
  4. Abdullakutty A, Madhavarajan S, Collyer J, Sneddon K. Uses of BioHPP in maxillofacial reconstruction: A 6 year review of cases. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;50:S39-S40.
  5. Costa-Palau S, Torrents-Nicolas J, Brufau-de Barberà M, Cabratosa-Termes J. Use of polyetheretherketone in the fabrication of a maxillary obturator prosthesis: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112:680-2.
  6. Hatamleh M, Haylock C, Watson J, Watts D. Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation in the UK: a survey of maxillofacial prosthesis and technologists attitudes and opinions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39:1186-92.
  7. Sowter JB, Gorman JJ. Dental Laboratory Technology. The University of North Carolina Press; 1968.
  8. Mekkawy MA, Hussein LA, Alsharawy MA. Comparative study of surface roughness between polyamide, thermoplastic polymethyl methacrylate and acetal resins flexible denture base materials before and after polishing. Life Sci J. 2015;12:90-5.
  9. Collee JG. Mackie & mccartney practical medical microbiology. 14th ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone. 1996.
  10. Clark AE, Kaleta EJ, Arora A, Wolk DM. Matrixassisted laser desorption ionization–time of flight mass spectrometry: a fundamental shift in the routine practice of clinical microbiology. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013;26:547-603.
  11. Hassan A, Usman J, Kaleem F, Omair M, Khalid A, Iqbal M. Evaluation of different detection methods of biofilm formation in the clinical isolates. Braz J Infect Dis. 2011;15:305-11.
  12. Pantanella F, Valenti P, Natalizi T, Passeri D, Berlutti F. Analytical techniques to study microbial biofilm on abiotic surfaces: pros and cons of the main techniques currently in use. Ann Ig. 2013;25:31-42.
  13. Kim KH, Loch C, Waddell JN, Tompkins G, Schwass D. Surface characteristics and biofilm development on selected dental ceramic materials. Int J Dent. 2017;2017: 7627945.
  14. Javid NS, Dadmanesh J. Obturator design for hemimaxillectomy patients. J Prosthet Dent. 1976;36:77-81.
  15. Pero AC, Marra J, Paleari AG, Pereira WRF, Barbosa DB, Compagnoni MA. Measurement of interfacial porosity at the acrylic resin/denture tooth interface. J Prosthodont. 2010;19:42-6.
  16. Yu P, Wang C, Zhou J, Jiang L, Xue J, Li W. Influence of Surface Properties on Adhesion Forces and Attachment of Streptococcus mutans to Zirconia In Vitro. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:8901253.
  17. Kumar A, Yap WT, Foo SL, Lee TK. Effects of sterilization cycles on BioHPP for medical device application. Bioengineering. 2018;5:18.
  18. Munker T, van de Vijfeijken S, Mulder CS, Vespasiano V, Becking AG, Kleverlaan CJ, et al. Effects of sterilization on the mechanical properties of poly (methyl methacrylate) based personalized medical devices. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2018;81:168-72.
  19. Kawai K, Urano M, Ebisu S. Effect of surface roughness of porcelain on adhesion of bacteria and their synthesizing glucans. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83:664-7.
  20. Gharechahi M, Moosavi H, Forghani M. Effect of surface roughness and materials composition on biofilm formation. J Biomater Nanobiotechnol. 2012;3:541-6.
  21. Mei L, Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC, Ren Y. Influence of surface roughness on streptococcal adhesion forces to composite resins. Dent Mater. 2011;27:770-8.
  22. Kurtz SM. Bacterial Interactions with Polyaryletheretherketone. In: Kurtz SM (ed). BioHPP Biomaterials Handbook. Kidlington: William Andrew; 2011.
Statistics
Article View: 409
PDF Download: 618