Effect of denture cleansers on Candida albicans biofilm formation over resilient liners

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of denture cleansers on Candida albicans biofilm formation over resilient liners and to evaluate compatibility between resilient liners and denture cleansers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Acrylic resin (Lucitone 199(R)) and 3 resilient liners (COE-SOFT(TM), GC RELINE(TM) and SOFRELINER TOUGH TOUGH(R)) were incubated in denture cleansers (Polident(R) and Cleadent(R)) for 8 hours a day and in unstimulated saliva for 16 hours a day (n=25/gp) for 60 days. Two-way and three-way repeated measures ANOVA were performed to compare the surface roughness (Ra), pH and C. albicans binding level by radioisotope (alpha=0.05). The statistical significance of the relation between Ra and adhesion was evaluated by correlation analysis. RESULTS: The degree of Ra was significantly decreased in the following order: COE-SOFT(TM), acrylic resin, GC RELINE(TM) and SOFRELINER TOUGH(R). The immersion in denture cleansers significantly increased Ra of resilient liners, except for SOFRELINER TOUGH(R) in Cleadent(R). No significant differences in pH curves were observed among groups immersed in distilled water and denture cleansers. The binding levels of C. albicans were significantly decreased in the following order: COE-SOFT(TM), GC RELINE(TM), SOFRELINER TOUGH(R), and acrylic resin. The immersion in Cleadent(R) seemed to decrease C. albicans binding level on GC RELINE(TM) and SOFRELINER TOUGH(R). CONCLUSION: Based on the C. albicans binding levels results, it is not recommended to immerse COE-SOFT(TM) in denture cleansers, and GC RELINE(TM) and SOFRELINER TOUGH(R) should be immersed in Cleadent(R).

Influence of the implant-abutment connection design and diameter on the screw joint stability

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate the influence of the implant-abutment connection design and diameter on the screw joint stability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Regular and wide-diameter implant systems with three different joint connection designs: an external butt joint, a one-stage internal cone, and a two-stage internal cone were divided into seven groups (n=5, in each group). The initial removal torque values of the abutment screw were measured with a digital torque gauge. The postload removal torque values were measured after 100,000 cycles of a 150 N and a 10 Hz cyclic load had been applied. Subsequently, the rates of the initial and postload removal torque losses were calculated to evaluate the effect of the joint connection design and diameter on the screw joint stability. Each group was compared using Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test as post-hoc test (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: The postload removal torque value was high in the following order with regard to magnitude: two-stage internal cone, one-stage internal cone, and external butt joint systems. In the regular-diameter group, the external butt joint and one-stage internal cone systems showed lower postload removal torque loss rates than the two-stage internal cone system. In the wide-diameter group, the external butt joint system showed a lower loss rate than the one-stage internal cone and two-stage internal cone systems. In the two-stage internal cone system, the wide-diameter group showed a significantly lower loss rate than the regular-diameter group (P<.05). CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that the external butt joint was more advantageous than the internal cone in terms of the postload removal torque loss. For the difference in the implant diameter, a wide diameter was more advantageous in terms of the torque loss rate.