Candida albicans biofilms and MMA surface treatment influence the adhesion of soft denture liners to PMMA resin.
Soft denture liners are used to form a comfortable interface between denture and soft oral tissues, reducing traumatic transmission of occlusal forces to severely resorbed alveolar ridges and areas recovering from surgical procedures. (1) However, failure often occurs in adhesive bond between soft liner and denture base resin, resulting in tearing and material loss during clinical use. (2) This damage can increase surface roughness and create irregularities that act as sheltered sites where oral biofilms may accumulate over time. (3) These biofilms are mainly composed of C. albicans and may cause denture-induced stomatitis (4) or accelerate wear and aging of soft liner and denture base. (5) In order to prevent these problems, several denture base surface treatments have been proposed to increase the bond strength between these materials. (6)
When compared to other denture resin pretreatments, (6-8) methyl methacrylate (MMA) surface pretreatment increased tensile bond strength (8) and reduced microleakage between the denture base and silicone-based soft liners. (7) In order to evaluate the durability of bonds between soft liners and pretreated denture resins, previous studies have subjected specimens to distilled water storage, (9) accelerated aging in hot water, (10) or thermocycling procedures (8, 11) prior to bond strength testing.
More recently, it was hypothesized that in vitro exposure of composites to oral biofilms results in clinically relevant surface degradation. (5) Although there have been reports concerning the bond strength of soft liners to denture base resins and the effects of various pretreatment methods, until now there have been no studies considering the potential damaging effect of oral biofilms on the interface between soft liners and pretreated denture resins. Therefore, the influence of C. albicans biofilms on the tensile bond strength between soft liners and denture resin, with or without MMA pretreatment, was analyzed. The principal hypothesis was that biofilms can cause degradation of the denture liner-PMMA interface, decreasing the bond strength.
An in vitro study with blind analysis was performed, in which specimens were prepared and randomly divided according to PMMA surface treatment (MMA pretreatment or no treatment), denture liner type (silicone-based or PMMA-based), and presence or absence of a C. albicans biofilm. Denture liners were applied between two treated PMMA bars, and specimens (n = 10) were subjected to biofilm accumulation, or phosphate buffered saline (PBS) storage, in order to simulate conditions experienced by dentures in clinical applications. Tensile bond strength was measured and the nature of failure (adhesive, cohesive, or mixed) was determined using a stereomicroscope under 10x magnification. Surface roughness (SR) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analyses were performed on denture liner discs (n = 8) for surface characterization.
Microwave-polymerized PMMA (Vipi Wave, VIPI, Pirassununga, Brazil) resin bars (25.0 x 5.0 x 5.0 mm; n = 160), silicone-based (Ufi Gel SC, VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany) and PMMA-based soft liner discs (Coe Soft, GC, Coe Laboratories Inc., Chicago, USA; 10.0 mm diameter x 2.0 mm thick; n = 32) were prepared according to manufacturers' recommendations using metal master patterns.
The PMMA bars were trimmed and finished in a polishing machine (APL-4 Model; Arotec, Cotia, Brazil), using abrasive paper (320, 400, and 600 grit, Carbimet; Buehler, Lake Bluff, USA). Specimens were ultrasonically cleaned (Thornton T740, Thornton-Inpec Eletronica Ltda., Vinhedo, Brazil) and immersed in distilled water at 35[degrees]C for 48 h for residual monomer release. (12)
The square faces of PMMA bars were either treated with MMA (180 s) or left without surface treatment prior to adhesion of the 2 mm-thick denture liner. (8,13,14) Specimens were stored in 100% relative humidity before testing.
Soft liner specimens were ultrasonically cleaned and maintained in 100% humidity at 35[degrees]C for 24 h prior to biofilm accumulation or PBS storage. The cleaning procedure consisted of sonication for 10 minutes in 0.5% sodium hypochlorite and 10 minutes in sterile water. (12) Discs were used for surface roughness evaluation and SEM analysis before and after PBS storage or biofilm accumulation.
Biofilm formation and PBS storage conditions
Candida albicans (OMZ 110) was reactivated in yeast nitrogen base (YNB) medium containing 50 mM glucose, and the biofilm inoculum was standardized at an optical density of 0.25 in YNB containing 100 mM glucose. After allowing 90 minutes for initial adhesion, specimens were transferred to new tubes containing 7.0 mL of sterile YNB with 100 mM glucose for biofilm development. (15) Control specimens were immersed in 7.0 mL of PBS. Both sets of samples were stored at 35[degrees]C with agitation. PBS solution and biofilm culture medium were changed daily. After 12 days, the specimens were ultrasonically cleaned and prepared for testing.
Tensile bond strength evaluation
The tensile strength test was performed in a universal
testing machine (4411, Instron Corp., Canton, USA) using a crosshead speed of 5.0 mm/min. Samples were tested until failure. The tensile strength, in MPa, was determined by multiplying the stress (Kgf) at the time of failure by a constant (9.8) and dividing this result by the surface area of adhesion ([mm.sup.2]). Failures were examined using a stereomicroscope at 10x magnification and classified as adhesive (total separation at the interface between the liner and resin), cohesive (tearing within the soft liner), or mixed failures (both adhesive and cohesive). (8,16)
Surface roughness evaluation
Surface roughness was used to identify changes in the soft liner surface occurring during biofilm accumulation or PBS storage. Measurements were obtained using a profilometer (Surfcorder SE1700; Kosaka Laboratory Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) with 0.01 mm resolution and adjusted for a 0.8 mm sample length, 3.2 mm percussion of measurement, and 0.5 mm/s stylus speed. Reported roughness values are the average of three measurements performed on each specimen (n = 8). (12)
Scanning electron microscopy evaluation
To evaluate the effect of biofilm accumulation, or PBS storage, on soft liners surface, specimens were ultrasonically cleaned and prepared for SEM. Samples were examined using an acceleration voltage of 15 kV at 2000x magnification. (17,18) The surfaces were evaluated at baseline (n = 3) and after biofilm accumulation (n = 3) or PBS storage (n = 3).
Statistical analysis was performed using the SigmaPlot 12 software (SigmaPlot v. 12.3, Systat Software Inc., San Jose, USA) at 5% significance. Tensile strength results were evaluated using three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Holm-Sidak's test. Soft liner surface roughness results were evaluated using one-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni test.
The highest tensile bond strength (Table 1) was observed in the groups with silicone-based soft liners stored in PBS (p < 0.01), regardless of pretreatment. C. albicans biofilm accumulation resulted in a bond strength decrease for silicone-based specimens (p < 0.01).
Silicone-based specimens generally underwent adhesive failures while PMMA-based groups experienced predominantly cohesive failures (Table 2). Cohesive failures were mainly observed in the group receiving MMA pretreatment and stored in PBS (Table 2).
The silicone-based liners surface roughness decreased after biofilm accumulation or PBS storage (p < 0.001, Table 3), while PMMA-based liners surface roughness increased after PBS storage, and even more after biofilm accumulation (p < 0.001).
SEM observations of PMMA-based samples revealed a smooth porous surface (Figure 1A). After PBS storage (Figure 1B) or biofilm accumulation (Figure 1C), surfaces exhibited smaller pores as well as the formation of crests and valleys. Surface modifications may be due to material swelling, which causes pore constriction and creates wrinkles on the surface. At baseline, silicone-based samples presented smooth surfaces without visible pores, but with sharp crests and depressions (Figure 1D). After PBS storage or biofilm accumulation, material swelling made the depressions less pronounced, resulting in a smother surface than that observed at baseline (Figure 1E and 1F).
The observation that soft liner surfaces are generally rough and covered with a biofilm (2) motivated our evaluation of the effect of C. albicans biofilms on tensile bond strength between soft liners and untreated or MMA-pretreated PMMA resin. However, we found that the effect of biofilms on adhesion was important mainly in samples employing silicone-based liners.
Our principal hypothesis was accepted in the case of silicone-based liners, in which the presence of C. albicans biofilms resulted in significantly lower bond strength. This result is in accordance with a previous study (5) demonstrating that in vitro exposure to oral biofilms leads to clinically relevant aging of dental materials.
However, no statistical difference was observed for bond strengths of specimens employing PMMA-based liners, even with MMA pretreatment. There was a relationship between failure type and MMA pretreatment, with better adhesion being associated with more mixed failures in both silicone and PMMA liner groups, as previously reported in the literature. (19)
In spite of the fact that other surface pretreatments had previously been reported ineffective in improving bond strength during a hard chairside reline using PMMA acrylic resin, (6) we found MMA pretreatment to be effective in increasing the bond strength between silicone-based soft liners and PMMA resin stored in PBS. Considering that there is no chemical interaction between silicone-based liner and PMMA acrylic resin, (8) the increase in bond strength may be due to the ability of MMA to dissolve PMMA surface layer and increase the bonding surface area. (18)
For PMMA-based groups there were no significant differences in bond strength due to the presence of biofilm or following resin pretreatment. However, this result should be interpreted with caution, since the high number of cohesive failures in PMMA-based soft liners may be due to the fact that the bond to PMMA resin is stronger than the denture liner tensile strength itself, (16,17,19) inducing failure in soft liner before debonding from PMMA resin occurs. However, all of the soft liners demonstrated bond strengths to denture base resin above the minimum acceptable bond strength for clinical use (0.45 MPa). (11,14)
Besides to the degradation between soft liners and PMMA resin interface, C. albicans biofilm accumulation led to a greater overall degradation. This is probably related to the ability of C. albicans hyphae to adhere and penetrate into soft liners, (20,21) as well as the production of proteases and phospholipases. (22,23) Thus, it is important to consider the degradation of the soft liner itself, which makes the material more susceptible to tearing.
Storage in aqueous solutions such as PBS or growth medium promotes the release of soluble compounds and plasticizers as well as water infiltration, (11,24) both of which may contribute to degradation and surface modification of soft liner materials. (11) A large number of crests and valleys in PMMA-based soft liners and surface modifications in silicone-based liners were evident in SEM images of the liners obtained after storage. However, more studies are necessary to confirm the effects of water uptake, and evaluations of other soft liner types should be undertaken, including other PMMA and silicone-based materials.
When immersed in MMA solution, a decrease in flexural strength is sometimes observed in PMMA resins; (8) however, this would not be expected in clinical practice since the MMA pretreatment involves only surface application, as was performed in the present study. The use of MMA pretreatment may result in better clinical performance and greater prosthetic survival. Biofilm accumulation seems to play an important role in degradation of the adhesive interface and should be avoided. (5) Although the results are based on an in vitro study, clinical application of these recommendations may contribute to a higher-strength interface with a smoother surface and less biofilm accumulation. (23) However, in patients with candidiasis, material selection alone may not influence the C. albicans biofilms growth, particularly when oral hygiene measures are correctly applied. (25)
Several factors are expected to affect the bond strength between soft liners and denture base resins, including aging in water (9,10) and thermocycling. (8,11) This list may now also include biofilm accumulation, the use of a bonding agent, and the composition of the soft liner. Additional studies incorporating longer periods of biofilm accumulation must be conducted with the purpose of assessing material degradation and structural failures under these conditions.
It is also important to consider that aging of soft liners in the oral cavity involves more than exposure to biofilms: temperature variations and immersion in water or acidic fluids from foods may also contribute to clinical aging. (5) Future in vitro studies should attempt to simulate as many of these conditions as possible.
In vitro exposure to C. albicans biofilms reduced the adhesion of soft liners to PMMA resin, and MMA pretreatment of denture bases is recommended during relining procedures.
(1.) Pisani MX, Malheiros-Segundo AL, Balbino KL, Souza RF, Paranhos HF, Silva CH. Oral health related quality of life of edentulous patients after denture relining with a silicone-based soft liner. Gerodontology. 2012 Jun;29(2):474-80.
(2.) Mutluay MM, Oguz S, Fl0ystrand F, Saxegaard E, Dogan A, Bek B, et al. A prospective study on the clinical performance of polysiloxane soft liners: one-year results. Dent Mater J. 2008 May;27(3):440-7.
(3.) Monsenego P. Presence of microorganisms on the fitting denture complete surface: study 'in vivo'. J Oral Rehabil. 2000 Aug;27(8):708-13.
(4.) Uludamar A, Ozyejil AG, Ozkan YK. Clinical and microbiological efficacy of three different treatment methods in the management of denture stomatitis. Gerodontology. 2011 Jun;28(2): 104-10.
(5.) Rinastiti M, Ozcan M, Siswomihardjo W, Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC. Effect of biofilm on the repair bond strengths of composites. J Dent Res. 2010 Dec;89(12):1476-81.
(6.) Leles CR, Machado AL, Vergani CE, Giampaolo ET, Pavarina AC. Bonding strength between a hard chairside reline resin and a denture base material as influenced by surface treatment. J Oral Rehabil. 2001 Dec;28(12):1153-7.
(7.) Sarac YS, Bajoglu T, Ceylan GK, Sarac D, Yapici O. Effect of denture base surface pretreatment on microleakage of a silicone-based resilient liner. J Prosthet Dent. 2004 Sep;92(3):283-7.
(8.) Sarac D, Sarac YS, Basoglu T, Yapici O, Yuzbasioglu E. The evaluation of microleakage and bond strength of a silicone-based resilient liner following denture base surface pretreatment. J Prosthet Dent. 2006 Feb;95(2):143-51.
(9.) Tugut F, Akin H, Mutaf B, Akin GE, Ozdemir AK. Strength of the bond between a silicone lining material and denture resin after Er:YAG laser treatments with different pulse durations and levels of energy. Lasers Med Sci. 2012 Mar;27(2):281-5.
(10.) Al-Athel M, Jagger R, Jagger D. Effect of ageing on the bond strength of a permanent denture soft lining material. J Oral Rehabil. 2002 Oct;29(10):992-6.
(11.) Takahashi JM, Consani RL, Henriques GE, Nobilo MA, Mesquita MF. Effect of accelerated aging on permanent deformation and tensile bond strength of autopolymerizing soft denture liners. J Prosthodont. 2011 Apr;20(3):200-4.
(12.) Senna PM, Silva WJ, Faot F, Del Bel Cury AA. Microwave disinfection: cumulative effect of different power levels on physical properties of denture base resins. J Prosthodont. 2011 Dec;20(8):606-12.
(13.) Minami H, Suzuki S, Ohashi H, Kurashige H, Tanaka T. Effect of surface treatment on the bonding of an autopolymerizing soft denture liner to a denture base resin. Int J Prosthodont. 2004 May-Jun;17(3):297-301.
(14.) Maeda T, Hong G, Sadamori S, Hamada T, Akagawa Y. Durability of peel bond of resilient denture liners to acrylic denture base resin. J Prosthodont Res. 2012 Apr;56(2):136-41.
(15.) Goncalves LM, Del Bel Cury AA, Sartoratto A, Garcia Rehder VL, Silva WJ. Effects of undecylenic acid released from denture liner on Candida biofilms. J Dent Res. 2012 Oct;91(10):985-9.
(16.) Pinto JR, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Nobilo MAA. Effect of thermocycling on bond strength and elasticity of 4 long-term soft denture liners. J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Nov;88(5):516-21.
(17.) Mutluay MM, Ruyter IE. Evaluation of bond strength of soft relining materials to denture base polymers. Dent Mater. 2007 Nov;23(11):1373-81.
(18.) Rached RN, Del Bel Cury AA. Heat-cured acrylic resin repaired with microwave-cured one: bond strength and surface texture. J Oral Rehabil. 2001 Apr;28(4):370-5.
(19.) Akin H, Tugut F, Guney U, Kirmali O, Akar T. Tensile bond strength of silicone-based soft denture liner to two chemically different denture base resins after various surface treatments. Lasers Med Sci. 2013 Jan;28(1):119-23.
(20.) Bulad K, Taylor RL, Verran J, McCord JF. Colonization and penetration of denture soft lining materials by Candida albicans. Dent Mater. 2004 Feb;20(2):167-75.
(21.) Rodger G, Taylor RL, Pearson GJ, Verran J. In vitro colonization of an experimental silicone by Candida albicans. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010 Jan;92(1):226-35.
(22.) Nikawa H, Jin C, Hamada T, Makihira S, Kumagai H, Murata H. Interactions between thermal cycled resilient denture lining materials, salivary and serum pellicles and Candida albicans in vitro. Part II. Effects on fungal colonization. J Oral Rehabil. 2000 Feb;27(2):124-30.
(23.) Nikawa H, Jin C, Hamada T, Murata H. Interactions between thermal cycled resilient denture lining materials, salivary and serum pellicles and Candida albicans in vitro. Part I. Effects on fungal growth. J Oral Rehabil. 2000 Jan;27(1):41-51.
(24.) Garcia RM, Leon BT, Oliveira VB, Del Bel Cury AA. Effect of a denture cleanser on weight, surface roughness, and tensile bond strength of two resilient denture liners. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 May;89(5):489-94.
(25.) Williams DW, Kuriyama T, Silva S, Malic S, Lewis MA. Candida biofilms and oral candidosis: treatment and prevention. Periodontol 2000. 2011 Feb;55(1):250-65.
Martinna de Mendonca e Bertolini
Yuri Wanderley Cavalcanti
Wander Jose da Silva
Altair Antoninha Del Bel Cury
Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Piracicaba Dental School, Universidade Estadual de Campinas Unicamp, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
Declaration of Interests: The authors certify that they have no commercial or associative interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection with the manuscript.
Martinna de Mendonca e Bertolini
Epub Nov 29, 2013
Submitted: Apr 02, 2013
Accepted for publication: Sep 05, 2013
Last revision: Sep 20, 2013
Table 1--Tensile bond strength (mean [+ or -] SD, MPa) of soft liners to untreated (NT) or surface treated (MMA) PMMA following biofilm accumulation or PBS storage. Biofilm PBS accumulation Silicone-based liner MMA 3.60 [+ or -] 5.92 [+ or -] 0.47 (Aa) * 0.70 (Ab[section]) NT 3.21 [+ or -] 4.03 [+ or -] 0.78 (Aa) * 0.70 (Ab+) PMMA-based liner MMA 1.24 [+ or -] 1.11 [+ or -] 0.19 (Bc[yen]) 0.15 (Bc[yen]) NT 1.31 [+ or -] 1.14 [+ or -] 0.39 (Bc[yen]) 0.18 Bc[yen] Different uppercase letters indicate statistical difference between soft liners. Different lowercase letters indicate statistical difference between PMMA surface treatments. Different symbols indicate statistical difference between biofilm accumulation and PBS storage. Table 2--Failure distribution (%) for liner-PMMA bonds. Silicone-based liner MMA NT Failure type Biofilm PBS Biofilm PBS Adhesive 90 70 100 80 Mixed 10 30 0 20 Cohesive 0 0 0 0 PMMA-based liner MMA NT Failure type Biofilm PBS Biofilm PBS Adhesive 10 0 40 30 Mixed 20 20 30 30 Cohesive 70 80 30 40 Table 3--Surface roughness (mean [+ or -] SD, [micro]m) of soft liners at baseline and after biofilm accumulation or PBS storage. Baseline Biofilm accumulation PBS storage Silicone- 4.55 [+ or -] 2.72 [+ or -] 2.58 [+ or -] based 0.27 (Aa) 0.19 (Ba) 0.28 (Ba) PMMA- 6.76 [+ or -] 7.98 [+ or -] 7.29 [+ or -] based 0.25 (Ab) 0.15 (Bb) 0.33 (Cb) Different uppercase letters indicate statistical differences between baseline, biofilm accumulation, and PBS storage groups. Different lowercase letters indicate statistical differences between liner types.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||de Mendonga, Martinna Bertolini; Cavalcanti, Yuri Wanderley; Dimorvan, Bordin; da Silva, Wander Jose|
|Publication:||Brazilian Oral Research|
|Article Type:||Author abstract|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2014|
|Previous Article:||Malocclusion and socioeconomic indicators in primary dentition.|
|Next Article:||Stress analysis of different configurations of 3 implants to support a fixed prosthesis in an edentulous jaw.|