PURPOSE: This laboratory study aimed to investigate the effect of doping an acrylic denture base resin material with nanoparticles of ZnO, CaO, and TiO₂ on biofilm formation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized specimens of a commercially available cold-curing acrylic denture base resin material were doped with 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, or 0.8 wt% commercially available ZnO, CaO, and TiO₂ nanopowder. Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) was used to identify the availability of the nanoparticles on the surface of the modified specimens. Surface roughness was determined by employing a profilometric approach; biofilm formation was simulated using a monospecies Candida albicans biofilm model and a multispecies biofilm model including C. albicans, Actinomyces naeslundii, and Streptococcus gordonii. Relative viable biomass was determined after 20 hours and 44 hours using a MTT-based approach. RESULTS: No statistically significant disparities were identified among the various materials regarding surface roughness and relative viable biomass. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that doping denture base resin materials with commercially available ZnO, CaO, or TiO₂ nanopowders do not inhibit biofilm formation on their surface. Further studies might address the impact of varying particle sizes as well as increasing the fraction of nanoparticles mixed into the acrylic resin matrix.
Actinomyces ; Biofilms* ; Biomass ; Candida albicans ; Denture Bases* ; Dentures* ; Nanoparticles* ; Particle Size ; Polymethyl Methacrylate ; Spectrometry, X-Ray Emission ; Streptococcus gordonii

PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of crown material (lithium-disilicate, 3Y-TZP zirconia) and abutment type (rigid implant, resin tooth with artificial periodontium) on wear performance of their antagonist teeth and adjacent teeth.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mandibular left first molar (#36) with adjacent human teeth (mandibular left second premolar: #35, mandibular left second molar: #37) and antagonistic human teeth (maxillary left second premolar: #25, maxillary left first molar: #26, maxillary left second molar: #27) was prepared simulating a section of the jaw. Samples were made with extracted human molars (Reference), crowned implants (Implant), or crowned resin tooth analogues (Tooth). Crowns (tooth #36; n = 16/material) were milled from lithium-disilicate (Li, IPS e.max CAD) or 3Y-TZP zirconia (Zr, IPS e.max ZirCAD, both Ivoclar Vivadent). Thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML) in the chewing simulator were applied simulating 15 years of clinical service. Wear traces were analyzed (frequency [n], depth [µm]) and evaluated using scanning electron pictures. Wear results were compared by one-way-ANOVA and post-hoc-Bonferroni (α = 0.05).RESULTS: After TCML, no visible wear traces were found on Zr. Li showed more wear traces (n = 30–31) than the reference (n = 21). Antagonistic teeth #26 showed more wear traces in contact to both ceramics (n = 27–29) than to the reference (n = 21). Strong wear traces (> 350 µm) on antagonists and their adjacent teeth were found only in crowned groups. Abutment type influenced number and depth of wear facets on the antagonistic and adjacent teeth.CONCLUSION: The clinically relevant model with human antagonistic and adjacent teeth allowed for a limited comparison of the wear situation. The total number of wear traces and strong wear on crowns, antagonistic and adjacent teeth were influenced by crown material.
Bicuspid ; Ceramics ; Crowns ; Humans ; Jaw ; Lithium ; Mastication ; Molar ; Tooth

PURPOSE: To investigate the fatigue and fracture resistance of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) ceramic molar crowns on dental implants and human teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Molar crowns (n=48; n=8/group) were fabricated of a lithium-disilicate-strengthened lithium aluminosilicate glass ceramic (N). Surfaces were polished (P) or glazed (G). Crowns were tested on human teeth (T) and implant-abutment analogues (I) simulating a chairside (C, crown bonded to abutment) or labside (L, screw channel) procedure for implant groups. Polished/glazed lithium disilicate (E) crowns (n=16) served as reference. Combined thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TC: 3000×5℃/3000×55℃; ML: 1.2×106 cycles, 50 N) with antagonistic human molars (groups T) and steatite spheres (groups I) was performed under a chewing simulator. TCML crowns were then analyzed for failures (optical microscopy, SEM) and fracture force was determined. Data were statistically analyzed (Kolmogorow-Smirnov, one-way-ANOVA, post-hoc Bonferroni, α=.05). RESULTS: All crowns survived TCML and showed small traces of wear. In human teeth groups, fracture forces of N crowns varied between 1214±293 N (NPT) and 1324±498 N (NGT), differing significantly (P≤.003) from the polished reference EPT (2044±302 N). Fracture forces in implant groups varied between 934±154 N (NGI_L) and 1782±153 N (NPI_C), providing higher values for the respective chairside crowns. Differences between polishing and glazing were not significant (P≥.066) between crowns of identical materials and abutment support. CONCLUSION: Fracture resistance was influenced by the ceramic material, and partly by the tooth or implant situation and the clinical procedure (chairside/labside). Type of surface finish (polishing/glazing) had no significant influence. Clinical survival of the new glass ceramic may be comparable to lithium disilicate.
Ceramics ; Computer-Aided Design ; Crowns ; Dental Implants ; Fatigue ; Glass ; Humans ; In Vitro Techniques ; Lithium ; Mastication ; Microscopy ; Molar ; Tooth

PURPOSE: All-ceramic restorations required extensive tooth preparation. The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate a minimally invasive preparation and thickness of monolithic zirconia crowns, which would provide sufficient mechanical endurance and strength. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Crowns with thickness of 0.2 mm (group 0.2, n=32) or of 0.5 mm (group 0.5, n=32) were milled from zirconia and fixed with resin-based adhesives (groups 0.2A, 0.5A) or zinc phosphate cements (groups 0.2C, 0.5C). Half of the samples in each subgroup (n=8) underwent thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML)(TC: 5℃ and 55℃, 2×3,000 cycles, 2 min/cycle; ML: 50 N, 1.2×106 cycles), while the other samples were stored in water (37℃/24 h). Survival rates were compared (Kaplan-Maier). The specimens surviving TCML were loaded to fracture and the maximal fracture force was determined (ANOVA; Bonferroni; α=.05). The fracture mode was analyzed. RESULTS: In both 0.5 groups, all crowns survived TCML, and the comparison of fracture strength among crowns with and without TCML showed no significant difference (P=.628). Four crowns in group 0.2A and all of the crowns in group 0.2C failed during TCML. The fracture strength after 24 hours of the cemented 0.2 mm-thick crowns was significantly lower than that of adhesive bonded crowns. All cemented crowns provided fracture in the crown, while about 80% of the adhesively bonded crowns fractured through crown and die. CONCLUSION: 0.5 mm thick monolithic crowns possessed sufficient strength to endure physiologic performance, regardless of the type of cementation. Fracture strength of the 0.2 mm cemented crowns was too low for clinical application.
Adhesives ; Cementation ; Ceramics ; Crowns ; In Vitro Techniques ; Survival Rate ; Tooth Preparation ; Water ; Zinc