International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 13 , ISSUE 3 ( July-September, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Surface Roughness and Adhesion of Candida albicans on Conventional Heat-cured, Injection-molded Thermoplastic Resin and CAD-CAM Denture Base Resin as Affected by Denture Cleanser: An In Vitro Study

Neha Chaudhary, Bhupender Yadav, Sumit Phukela, Manisha Khandait

Keywords : Candida albicans, Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing resin, Denture base, Denture cleanser, Surface roughness

Citation Information : Chaudhary N, Yadav B, Phukela S, Khandait M. Comparative Evaluation of Surface Roughness and Adhesion of Candida albicans on Conventional Heat-cured, Injection-molded Thermoplastic Resin and CAD-CAM Denture Base Resin as Affected by Denture Cleanser: An In Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2023; 13 (3):145-153.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1419

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-09-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the surface roughness (Ra) and adhesion of Candida albicans (C. albicans) on conventional heat-cured, injection-molded thermoplastic resin and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) denture base resin as affected by denture cleanser solution at baseline, 15, 30, and 45 days. Materials and methods: A rectangular-shaped metal die was fabricated to make heat-cure (n = 80) and injection-molded thermoplastic denture base resin (n = 80) disks of uniform dimensions, whereas CAD-CAM disks (n = 80) were made by scanning the wax disk and milling of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) block. All the 240 specimens were immersed in the two different solutions, that is, artificial saliva solution (n = 120) as the control group and denture cleansing solution (n = 120) as a test group for a period of 0, 15, 30, and 45 days for 8 hours, respectively followed by Candida colonization. The Ra was evaluated by surface profilometer SJ-201, followed by the measurement of Candida colonization. The statistical analysis was done using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, one-way ANOVA, and independent t-test. Results: The Ra of heat-cured cured samples were 0.87 ± 0.01, 0.85 ± 0.02, 0.84 ± 0.02, and 0.83 ± 0.02 μm; injection-molded thermoplastic resin samples were 1.03 ± 0.01, 1.03 ± 0.04, 1.02 ± 0.03, and 1.00 ± 0.05 μm; and of CAD-CAM resin samples were 0.42 ± 0.01, 0.41 ± 0.02, 0.40 ± 0.03, and 0.40 ± 0.03 μm, respectively, when immersed in artificial saliva at baseline and intervals of 15, 30, and 45 days. The Ra of heat-cured samples were 1.12 ± 0.011, 1.21 ± 0.008, 1.25 ± 0.011, and 1.56 ± 0.008 μm; injection-molded thermoplastic resin samples were 1.31 ± 0.010, 1.45 ± 0.008, 1.76 ± 0.010, and 2.26 ± 0.014 μm; and of CAD-CAM resin samples were 0.86 ± 0.016, 1.07 ± 0.008, 1.12 ± 0.008, and 1.18 ± 0.015 μm, respectively, when immersed in denture cleansing solution at baseline, 15, 30, and 45 days. A similar trend was visible in the adherence of Candida to the denture base resins; the least adherence was seen in CAD-CAM resin, followed by heat-cured resin and injection-molded thermoplastic denture base resins. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, it was concluded that CAD-CAM denture base resins may be the preferred choice over conventional heat-cured or thermoplastic denture base resins for the fabrication of removable dental prosthesis to minimize Candida adherence and thus preventing opportunistic fungal infections in geriatric individuals.

  1. Suma K, Leoney A, Ali SA. Denture disinfectants used in prosthodontics - a review. Int J Contemp Med Res 2018;5(3):15–18.
  2. Baba NZ. Materials and processes for CAD/CAM complete denture fabrication. Curr Oral Health Rep 2016;3:203–206. DOI: 10.1007/s40496-016-0101-3
  3. Jain V, Babu J, Ahuja S, et al. Comparison of fungal biofilm formation on three contemporary denture base materials. Int J Experiment Dent Sci 2015;4(2):104–108. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10029-1106
  4. Shinawi LA. The effect of various denture cleansers on the colour stability of different denture base resins. Int J Pharm Res Allied Sci 2017;6(2):238–246.
  5. de Freitas Fernandes FS, Pereira-Cenci T, da Silva WJ, et al. Efficacy of denture cleansers on Candida spp. biofilm formed on polyamide and polymethyl methacrylate resins. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105(1):51–58. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60192-8
  6. M S, C S, George R, et al. Evolution of denture base materials from past to new era. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2018;17(11):23–27.
  7. Perea-Lowery L, Minja IK, Lassila L, et al. Assessment of CAD-CAM polymers for digitally fabricated complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125(1):175–181. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.008
  8. Janeva N, Kovacevska G, Janev E. Complete dentures fabricated with CAD/CAM technology and a traditional clinical recording method. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2017;5(6):785–789. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2017.169
  9. Barbeau J, Séguin J, Goulet JP, et al. Reassessing the presence of Candida albicans in denture-related stomatitis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;95(1):51–59. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2003.44
  10. Prpić V, Schauperl Z, Ćatić A, et al. Comparison of mechanical properties of 3D-printed, CAD/CAM, and conventional denture base materials. J Prosthodont 2020;29(6):524–528. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13175
  11. Pires FR, Santos EB, Bonan PR, et al. Denture stomatitis and salivary Candida in Brazilian edentulous patients. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29(11):1115–1119. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00947.x
  12. Batisse C, Nicolas E. Comparison of CAD/CAM and conventional denture base resins: a systematic review. Appl Sci 2021;11(13):5990. DOI: 10.3390/app11135990
  13. Vojdani M, Giti R. Polyamide as a denture base material: a literature review. J Dent (Shiraz) 2015;16(1 Suppl):1–9. PMID: 26106628.
  14. Fiore AD, Meneghello R, Brun P, et al. Comparison of the flexural and surface properties of milled, 3D-printed, and heat polymerized PMMA resins for denture bases: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2021;66(3):502–508. DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_21_00116
  15. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13(4):258–269. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3
  16. Sujitha K, Bharathi M, Lakshminarayana S, et al. Physical properties of heat cure denture base resin after incorporation of methacrylic acid. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9(Suppl 2):S251–S255. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_172_18
  17. Tripathi P, Phukela SS, Yadav B, et al. An in vitro study to evaluate and compare the surface roughness in heat-cured denture-based resin and injection-molded resin system as affected by two commercially available denture cleansers. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18(4)291–298. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_335_17
  18. Zissis AJ, Polyzois GL, Yannikakis SA. Roughness of denture materials: a comparative study. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13(2):136–140. PMID: 11203622.
  19. Peracini A, Davi LR, de Queiroz Ribeiro N, et al. Effect of denture cleansers on physical properties of heat-polymerized acrylic resin. J Prosthodont Res 2010;54(2):78–83. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2009.11.004
  20. Rodrigues Garcia RC, Joane Augusto de S Jr, Rached RN, et al. Effect of denture cleansers on the surface roughness and hardness of a microwave-cured acrylic resin and dental alloys. J Prosthodont 2004;13(3):173–178. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04028.x
  21. Polychronakis NC, Polyzois GL, Lagouvardos PE, et al. Effects of cleansing methods on 3-D surface roughness, gloss and color of a polyamide denture base material. Acta Odontol Scand 2015;73(5):353–363. DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2014.967720
  22. Durkan R, Ayaz EA, Bagis B, et al. Comparative effects of denture cleansers on physical properties of polyamide and polymethyl methacrylate base polymers. Dent Mater J 2013;32(3):367–375. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2012-110
  23. Abuzar MA, Bellur S, Duong N, et al. Evaluating surface roughness of a polyamide denture base material in comparison with poly (methyl methacrylate). J Oral Sci 2010;52(4):577–581. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.52.577
  24. Giti R, Dabiri S, Motamedifar M, et al. Surface roughness, plaque accumulation, and cytotoxicity of provisional restorative materials fabricated by different methods. PLoS One 2021;16(4):e0249551. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249551
  25. Vojdani M, Bagheri R, Khaledi AAR. Effects of aluminum oxide addition on the flexural strength, surface hardness, and roughness of heat-polymerized acrylic resin. J Dent Sci 2012;7(3):238–244. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2012.05.008
  26. Koroğlu A, Sahin O, Dede DO, et al. Effect of different surface treatment methods on the surface roughness and color stability of interim prosthodontic materials. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115(4):447–455. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.10.005
  27. Nassary Zadeh P, Lümkemann N, Eichberger M, et al. Differences in radiopacity, surface properties, and plaque accumulation for CAD/CAM-fabricated vs conventionally processed polymer-based temporary materials. Oper Dent 2019;45(4):407–415. DOI: 10.2341/19-057-L
  28. Kurt A, Erkose-Genc G, Uzun M, et al. The effect of cleaning solutions on a denture base material: elimination of Candida albicans and alteration of physical properties. J Prosthodont 2018;27(6):577–583. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12539
  29. Gantait S, Bhattacharyya J, Das S, et al. Comparative assessment of the effectiveness of different cleaning methods on the growth of Candida albicans over acrylic surface. Contemp Clin Dent 2016;7(3):336–342. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.188554
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.