English Українська
  • Main
  • Useful links
  • Information for Contributors
  • About
  • Editorial board

  • Article
    Fastovets O.O., Kotelevskyi R.A., Matviyenko R.Yu.

    COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF S. MUTANS AND C. ALBICANS SURFACE ADHESION AND MECHANICAL STRENGTH AS OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MATERIALS FOR TEMPORARY FIXED DENTURES


    About the author: Fastovets O.O., Kotelevskyi R.A., Matviyenko R.Yu.
    Heading CLINICAL MEDICINE
    Type of article Scentific article
    Annotation We carried out the comparative study of 7 materials, regarding the intensity of adhesion on their surfaces of S. mutans and C. albicans, using colorimetric analysis, and assessment of their mechanical properties according to indicators of fracture strength.It has been established that under using the S. mutans suspension, the highest indices of optical density, corresponding to the intensity of surface bacterial adhesion, were detected for Acryloxid (19.71 ± 2.59) and Carbodent (19.08 ± 2.23), and they decreased in the following sequence: Tempolat C (12.33 ± 1.58), Structur Premium (10.78 ± 1.92), Protemt 4 (8.92 ± 1.62), Visalys Temp (6.82 ± 1.97), Telio CS c & b (4.68 ± 1.65) (p < 0.05). For C. albicans, the maximum optical density values were recorded for Acryloxid (58.35 ± 9.03) and Carbodent (51.90 ± 8.31) and respectively decreased for Tempolat C (35.45 ± 5.13), Structur Premium (30.45 ± 5.34), Protemt 4 (31.65 ± 8.29), Telio CS c & b (30.60 ± 8.93), Visalys Temp (20.10 ± 7.09) (p < 0, 05). The indices of fracture strength were significantly lower for the plastics of Acryloxid (745.23 ± 94.75 N) and Carbodent (711.09 ± 179.18 N) compared to bis-acrylic composites such as Tempolat C (973.71 ± 98.46), Protemt 4 (1009.08 ± 84.50), Structur Premium (1392.19 ± 224.11 N), Visalys Temp (1254.38 ± 156.35 N), while the highest force was registered for the polyurethane composite Telio CS c & b (1106.45 ± 134.65 N) (p <0.05).
    Tags plastics, microbial adhesion, S. mutans, C. albicans, colorimetry, fracture strength
    Bibliography
    • Agustín-Panadero R, Serra-Pastor B, Roig-Vanaclocha A, Román-Rodriguez J-L, Fons-Font A. Mechanical behavior of provisional implant prosthetic abutments. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015; 20(1): 94–102.
    • Bhavya MA, Meena AA, Vidya CA. Comparative evaluation of the marginal accuracy of crowns fabricated from four commercially available provisional materials: An in-vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2015; 6 (2): 161–165.
    • Elagra MI, Rayyan MR, Alhomaidhi MM, Alanaziy AA, AlnefaieMO. Color stability and marginal integrity of interim crowns: An in-vitro study. Eur J Dent. 2017; 11(3): 330–334.
    • John P, Muthukumar B, Kumar MV. Comparison of the effect of dentin bonding, dentin sealing agents on the microleakage of provisional crowns fabricated with direct and indirect technique-an in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015; 9(6): 54–57.
    • May LM, Sam YC, Hao L, Chung-Yung C. Effect of heat treatment on the physical properties of provisional crowns during polymerization: an in-vitro study. Materials (Basel). 2015; 8 (4): 1766–1777.
    • Muley BY, Shaikh SR, Tagore MM, Khalikar AN. Effect of dietary simulating solvents on the mechanical properties of provisional restorative Materials-an in-vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014; 14(1): 98–105.
    • Prasad DK, Alva H, Shetty M. Evaluation of color stability of provisional restorative materials exposed to different Mouth rinses at varying time intervals: an in-vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014; 14(1): 85–92.
    • Saisadan D, Manimaran P, Meenapriya PK. In-vitro comparative evaluation of mechanical properties of temporary restorative materials used in fixed partial denture. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2016 8 (1): 105–109.
    • Sheen JA, Aman A, Viram U, Shilpi J. Comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements: In-vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016; 16(1): 42–48.
    • Shruti D, Madhav VN, Palaskar J. Evaluation of the flexural strength and microhardness of provisional crown and bridge materials fabricated by different methods. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016; 16(4): 328–334.
    • Singh A, Garg S. Comparative evaluation of flexural strength of provisional crown and bridge materials-an in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10(8): 72–77.
    • Stawarczyk B, Teuss S, Eichberger M, Roos M, Keul C. Retention strength of PMMA/UDMA-based crowns bonded to dentin: impact of different coupling agents for pretreatment. Materials (Basel). 2015 8 (11): 7486–7497.
    • Vaidyanathan TK, Vaidyanathan J, Arghavani D. Elastic, viscoelastic and viscoplastic contributions to compliance during deformation under stress in prosthodontic temporization materials. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2016; 2(1): 108–117.
    • Vivekanandan R, Arunachalam S, Vinaya K. Effect of water temperature on the fit of provisional crown margins during polymerization: An in-vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2012; 4(2): 376–383.
    • Yasangi MK, Mannem D, Bommireddy VS, Neturi S, Ravoori S. Comparative evaluation of marginal discrepancy in tooth colored self cure acrylic provisional restorations with and without reinforcement of glass Beads: an in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015; 9(5): 98–101.
    Publication of the article «World of Medicine and Biology» №3(65), 2018 year, 118-124 pages, index UDK 616.314-77-094-046.32: 615.462
    DOI 10.26724/2079-8334-2018-3-65-118-124