TY - JOUR
AU1 - Oktay, Elif, Aybala
AU2 - Ersahan,, Seyda
AU3 - Sabuncuoglu, Fidan, Alakus
AU4 - Tort,, Huseyin
AU5 - Karaoglanoglu,, Serpil
AB - Abstract Candida albicans biofilms are commonly associated with severe oral infections. In dentistry, prosthetic and restorative materials are potential structures for the adhesion of C. albicans facilitating the formation of Candida biofilm and infection. Three composite resins (Charisma Classic, Sonic Fill, Estelite ∑ Quick) and two finishing-polishing systems (Biscover LV, Dental Finishing Disc) were evaluated for Candida biofilm formation. A Candida biofilm assay showed that both the resin and the finishing/polishing procedures affect Candida biofilm formation. Specifically, Candida biofilm formation was significantly lower in Sonic Fill resin than both Charisma Classic and Estelite ∑ Quick (P = .021). The type of finishing and polishing procedure also significantly affected the Candida biofilm formation to composite material (P < .001). Candida biofilm formation was more advanced after Biscover LV procedure than Dental Finishing Disc procedure. Candida albicans, finishing and polishing, resin, dental composite restoration The human oral cavity hosts a complex microbiome comprised of an estimated 600 bacterial species and 100 fungal species.1,2 While the role of oral bacteria in human health and disease is increasingly well characterized, the role of oral fungi remains largely uncharacterized, with the exception of opportunistic Candida infection (oral candidiasis).3,4 The most common fungus in oral fungal microbiome is Candida albicans. C. albicans is associated with severe oral infection such as candidiasis, stomatitis, chronic periodontitis, and occlusal caries depending on the host immune system.5,6 The investigations of Lyon and Chick7 showed that Candida could be cultured more frequently from denture-sore-mouth (72%) than from normal mouth (17%). While usually benign in healthy individuals, recalcitrant C. albicans infections of the oral cavity are commonly observed in individuals with weakened immune systems (having diabetes, cancer, human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] and taking antibiotics or corticosteroids) or in patients at the extreme ages of life.8 The adhesion of C. albicans to any oral structure is the first and basic stage of pathogenic candidiasis biofilm formation.5,9 In dentistry, prosthetic and restorative materials are potential structures for the formation of C. albicans biofilm facilitating the formation of candidiasis biofilm and infection, particularly in immunocompromised patients such as those with AIDS or cancer.5,9 The biofilm formation on the dental materials and the subsequent colonization of the microbial cells, may cause secondary caries and gingivitis.10 Therefore, it is important to understand the mechanism of Candida biofilm formation and identify the factors contributing to this process for the development of preventive treatment strategies against candidiasis, particularly in immunocompromised patients. Dental restoration by using various composite materials is the most common procedure in dentistry applied to restore the integrity and morphology of missing tooth structure, which results from caries or external trauma. Previous studies have reported the effects of dental restoration on Candida biofilm.5,11 However, the studies on the effect of polishing/finishing procedures on Candida biofilm formation were limited in literature. Therefore, in this in vitro study we aim to evaluate whether finishing and polishing techniques and resins used for composite restorations have any effect on Candida biofilm formation by changing surface roughness and surface contact angle. We also aim to advance the current state of knowledge related to the effects of dental restorations and polishing/finishing procedures on Candida biofilm. Three different composite resins and two different finishing and polishing systems have been used in this in vitro study. The composite resins were Sonic Fill (Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), Charisma Classic (Heraeus Kulzer, Frankfurt, Germany), and Estelite ∑ Quick (Tokuyama, Tokyo, Japan). The finishing and polishing systems were Biscover LV (Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA) and Super-Snap Rainbow Technique Kit Dental Finishing Disc (Shofu Dental Corporation, San Marcos, CA, USA). Samples were prepared by the same investigator to reduce variability. A total of 36 composite resin discs (10 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth) were prepared with 12 samples in each resin group. Composite resins were placed in metal molds while the discs were being prepared. Transparent polyester matrix was placed on the lower and upper parts and it was clamped with glass laminates. The samples were polymerized using quartz-tungsten-halogen (QTH) light-cure unit for 20 seconds (3 M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA). Each composite resin group (n = 12) was divided into three subgroups each containing 4 samples: one subgroup with no processing at all, and two subgroups each with different finishing and polishing systems. In one of these two subgroups, samples were applied with aluminum oxide Sof-Lex discs (Sof-Lex, 3 M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, USA). It is the sequential application of medium, fine and superfine grain discs, mounted on the handpiece. Each disc was applied to the specimen for 10 seconds under constant cooling with a water jet. One disc sequence was used for each specimen. In the other subgroup, samples were applied with Biscover LV. The surfaces of these samples were acidified with 37% phosphoric acid for 20 seconds. It was washed and air-dried for 30 seconds with air-water spray. A thin layer of low-viscosity resin sealant and light-cure was applied for dispersion. Following finishing and polishing procedures, all composite disc samples were sterilized in ethylene oxide gas for 4 hours. Surface contact angle (SCA) of all dental composite specimens was measured from glass-contact surfaces with a goniometric contact angle measurement device (Easy Drop Gonyo-meter, Krüss, Hamburg, Germany). Distilled water was used as a contact angle liquid. A drop of distilled water was placed on the surface of each composite disc specimen, left and right contact angles were measured from 0 seconds to 60 seconds with 2-second intervals, and a mean contact angle was found for each sample. The surface roughness (Ra) of all disc surfaces was measured using a previously calibrated profilometer (Surfcom Flex, Tokyo Seimitsu, Tokyo, Japan) at a stylus speed of 0.1 mm/s, a cutoff of 0.8 mm, and range of 600 μm. The mean Ra of three measurements made in different directions from each sample was calculated. Adhesion quantity of cultured Candida strains on composite specimens was evaluated with a modified colorimetric technique using XTT/Coenzyme Q0 mixture.6 Accordingly, C. albicans strain SC5314, well-known for its adherence properties, was transplanted into GDH 2346 strain yeast-peptone-dextrose agar medium (1% yeast extract, 2% peptone, 2% dextrose, 1.5% agar). Five identifiable colonies from purely growing colonies were inoculated in 50 ml yeast extract peptone dextrose (YPD) liquid medium (1% yeast extract, 2% peptone, 2% dextrose) and grown overnight at 37°C in a shaking incubator (100 rpm). Subsequently, the pellet obtained by centrifugation at 5000 rpm for 10 min was washed twice with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) (8 g NaCl, 0.2 g KCl, 1.15 g Na2HPO4, 0.2 g KH2PO4, 1000 ml dH2O) at pH 7.2. The pellet was resuspended in RPMI 1640 medium containing L-glutamine, buffered with MOPS. The cell density of the suspension was adjusted to be 0.5 McFarland (1 × 106 cfu/ml). For the measurement of biofilm formation, 36 sample discs were separately placed in cell culture vials. Four milliliters of each yeast suspension was added to each X-well cell-culture plate and incubated for 48 hours under normal atmospheric conditions at 37°C in a shaker incubator at 60 rpm. Subsequently, the liquid media in the wells were aspirated and washed three times with 4 ml of sterile PBS for 10 minutes in a shaker incubator at 60 rpm in room temperature. After washing, discs were taken into 24 sterile cell culture plates and 500 μl XTT/Co Q0 mixture (0.5 mg/ml XTT, 40 μg/ml Co Q0/PBS) was added to each well. A blank well without a disc was used as a negative control. Floating microliter fluid samples from the supernatants were transferred to 96-well microplates, and the optical density (OD) was read at 490 nm on ELISA reader (BIO-TEK EL800, USA). The OD values obtained from the disc-free well was subtracted from all readings. The measurements were repeated 4 times for each sample. All the analysis was performed by the SPSS software package for Windows (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 15.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Data of study groups were compared by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and for significant differences Bonferroni post hoc multiple comparison test was performed. A two-tailed P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Surface contact angle, an indicator of hydrophobicity, showed significant difference among different composite resins and finishing and polishing systems used (Table 1). The mean surface contact angle values indicating hydrophobicity were 79.79°, 67.63° and 60.79° for Charisma Classic, Estelite Σ Quick, Sonic Fill composites, respectively. The mean SCA was highest in Charisma Classic resin and lowest in Sonic Fill (P < .001). Among finishing and polishing systems, Biscover LV provided higher surface contact angle than Dental Finishing Disc (77.27° ± 6.75° and 69.28° ± 10.81°, respectively), as the composite group on which finishing and polishing procedure was not applied had the lowest surface contact angle (61.66° ± 10.67°) (P < .001). Table 1. Mean (±standard deviation) surface contact angles (SCA) and surface roughness (Ra) of 36 sample disks with respect to three different composite resins and two different finishing and polishing systems used. Composite resins Charisma Classic Estelite ∑ Quick Sonic Fill Finishing and polishing systems SCA Ra SCA Ra SCA Ra Mean (SCA)a Mean (Ra)c Biscover LV 83.80° ± 6.53° 0.08 ± 0.17 μm 76.63° ± 2.01° 0.09 ± 0.17 μm 71.38° ± 4.08° 0.14 ± 0.02 μm 77.27° ± 6.75° 0.10 ± 0.04 μm Dental Finishing Disc 81.10° ± 6.69° 0.09 ± 0.17 μm 67.58° ± 7.38° 0.08 ± 0.02 μm 59.18° ± 1.76° 0.18 ± 0.04 μm 69.28° ± 10.81° 0.12 ± 0.05 μm No finishing/polishing 74.48° ± 1.69° 0.57 ± 0.14 μm 58.68° ± 3.92° 0.84 ± 0.17 μm 51.83° ± 6.27° 0.46 ± 0.17 μm 61.66° ± 10.67° 0.62 ± 0.22 μm Mean (SCA)b mean (Ra)d 79.79° ± 6.43° 0.25 ± 0.25 μm 67.63° ± 8.87° 0.34 ± 0.39 μm 60.79° ± 9.33° 0.26 ± 0.17 μm 69.40° ± 11.34° 0.28 ± 0.28 μm Composite resins Charisma Classic Estelite ∑ Quick Sonic Fill Finishing and polishing systems SCA Ra SCA Ra SCA Ra Mean (SCA)a Mean (Ra)c Biscover LV 83.80° ± 6.53° 0.08 ± 0.17 μm 76.63° ± 2.01° 0.09 ± 0.17 μm 71.38° ± 4.08° 0.14 ± 0.02 μm 77.27° ± 6.75° 0.10 ± 0.04 μm Dental Finishing Disc 81.10° ± 6.69° 0.09 ± 0.17 μm 67.58° ± 7.38° 0.08 ± 0.02 μm 59.18° ± 1.76° 0.18 ± 0.04 μm 69.28° ± 10.81° 0.12 ± 0.05 μm No finishing/polishing 74.48° ± 1.69° 0.57 ± 0.14 μm 58.68° ± 3.92° 0.84 ± 0.17 μm 51.83° ± 6.27° 0.46 ± 0.17 μm 61.66° ± 10.67° 0.62 ± 0.22 μm Mean (SCA)b mean (Ra)d 79.79° ± 6.43° 0.25 ± 0.25 μm 67.63° ± 8.87° 0.34 ± 0.39 μm 60.79° ± 9.33° 0.26 ± 0.17 μm 69.40° ± 11.34° 0.28 ± 0.28 μm aThe difference between three finishing and polishing groups is statistically significant (P < .001). The results of post hoc analysis were as follows: P < .001 for no finishing/polishing vs. Biscover LV, P = .002 for no finishing/polishing vs. Dental Finishing Disc, and P = .002 for Biscover LV vs. Dental Finishing Disc. bThe difference between three composite resin groups is statistically significant (P < .001). The results of post hoc analysis were as follows: P < .001 for Charisma Classic vs. Estelite ∑ Quick, P < .001 for Charisma Classic vs. Sonic Fill, and P = .006 for Estelite ∑ Quick vs. Sonic Fill. cThe difference between three finishing and polishing groups is statistically significant (P < .001). The results of post hoc analysis were as follows: P < .001 for no finishing/polishing vs. Biscover LV, P < .001 for no finishing/polishing vs. Dental Finishing Disc. dThe difference between three composite resin groups is not statistically significant (P = .057). Open in new tab Table 1. Mean (±standard deviation) surface contact angles (SCA) and surface roughness (Ra) of 36 sample disks with respect to three different composite resins and two different finishing and polishing systems used. Composite resins Charisma Classic Estelite ∑ Quick Sonic Fill Finishing and polishing systems SCA Ra SCA Ra SCA Ra Mean (SCA)a Mean (Ra)c Biscover LV 83.80° ± 6.53° 0.08 ± 0.17 μm 76.63° ± 2.01° 0.09 ± 0.17 μm 71.38° ± 4.08° 0.14 ± 0.02 μm 77.27° ± 6.75° 0.10 ± 0.04 μm Dental Finishing Disc 81.10° ± 6.69° 0.09 ± 0.17 μm 67.58° ± 7.38° 0.08 ± 0.02 μm 59.18° ± 1.76° 0.18 ± 0.04 μm 69.28° ± 10.81° 0.12 ± 0.05 μm No finishing/polishing 74.48° ± 1.69° 0.57 ± 0.14 μm 58.68° ± 3.92° 0.84 ± 0.17 μm 51.83° ± 6.27° 0.46 ± 0.17 μm 61.66° ± 10.67° 0.62 ± 0.22 μm Mean (SCA)b mean (Ra)d 79.79° ± 6.43° 0.25 ± 0.25 μm 67.63° ± 8.87° 0.34 ± 0.39 μm 60.79° ± 9.33° 0.26 ± 0.17 μm 69.40° ± 11.34° 0.28 ± 0.28 μm Composite resins Charisma Classic Estelite ∑ Quick Sonic Fill Finishing and polishing systems SCA Ra SCA Ra SCA Ra Mean (SCA)a Mean (Ra)c Biscover LV 83.80° ± 6.53° 0.08 ± 0.17 μm 76.63° ± 2.01° 0.09 ± 0.17 μm 71.38° ± 4.08° 0.14 ± 0.02 μm 77.27° ± 6.75° 0.10 ± 0.04 μm Dental Finishing Disc 81.10° ± 6.69° 0.09 ± 0.17 μm 67.58° ± 7.38° 0.08 ± 0.02 μm 59.18° ± 1.76° 0.18 ± 0.04 μm 69.28° ± 10.81° 0.12 ± 0.05 μm No finishing/polishing 74.48° ± 1.69° 0.57 ± 0.14 μm 58.68° ± 3.92° 0.84 ± 0.17 μm 51.83° ± 6.27° 0.46 ± 0.17 μm 61.66° ± 10.67° 0.62 ± 0.22 μm Mean (SCA)b mean (Ra)d 79.79° ± 6.43° 0.25 ± 0.25 μm 67.63° ± 8.87° 0.34 ± 0.39 μm 60.79° ± 9.33° 0.26 ± 0.17 μm 69.40° ± 11.34° 0.28 ± 0.28 μm aThe difference between three finishing and polishing groups is statistically significant (P < .001). The results of post hoc analysis were as follows: P < .001 for no finishing/polishing vs. Biscover LV, P = .002 for no finishing/polishing vs. Dental Finishing Disc, and P = .002 for Biscover LV vs. Dental Finishing Disc. bThe difference between three composite resin groups is statistically significant (P < .001). The results of post hoc analysis were as follows: P < .001 for Charisma Classic vs. Estelite ∑ Quick, P < .001 for Charisma Classic vs. Sonic Fill, and P = .006 for Estelite ∑ Quick vs. Sonic Fill. cThe difference between three finishing and polishing groups is statistically significant (P < .001). The results of post hoc analysis were as follows: P < .001 for no finishing/polishing vs. Biscover LV, P < .001 for no finishing/polishing vs. Dental Finishing Disc. dThe difference between three composite resin groups is not statistically significant (P = .057). Open in new tab The mean surface roughness (Ra) values were significantly different between different finishing and polishing systems but not between resin types (Table 1). Both Biscover LV and Dental Finishing Disc finishing and polishing systems provided significant lower Ra values than no finishing-polishing application (0.10 ± 0.04, 0.12 ± 0.05, and 0.62 ± 0.22, respectively, P < .001). However, there was no significant difference between Biscover LV and Dental Finishing Disc finishing and polishing systems in terms of Ra values (P > .05). An XTT-based assay which allows quantification of metabolically-active surface adherent Candida biofilms showed that Candida biofilm formation was significantly lower in Sonic Fill resin than both Charisma Classic and Estelite ∑ Quick (P = .021) (Table 2). The type of finishing and polishing procedure also significantly affected the Candida biofilm formation to composite material (P < .001). Both Biscover LV and Dental Finishing Disc finishing and polishing systems caused significantly higher C. albicans adhesion than that of no finishing-polishing application (0.37 ± 0.04, 0.21 ± 0.05, and 0.13 ± 0.02, respectively, P < .001). Additionally, Candida biofilm formation was more advanced after Biscover LV procedure than Dental Finishing Disc procedure (P < .001). Table 2. Mean (±standard deviation) OD 490 measurements for C. albicans adhesions of 36 sample disks with respect to three different composite resins and two different finishing and polishing systems used. Composite resins Finishing and polishing systems Charisma classic Estelite ∑ quick Sonic fill Meana Biscover LV 0.36 ± 0.03 0.39 ± 0.06 0.37 ± 0.02 0.37 ± 0.04 Dental Finishing Disc 0.24 ± 0.05 0.22 ± 0.03 0.16 ± 0.04 0.21 ± 0.05 No finishing/polishing 0.15 ± 0.03 0.15 ± 0.06 0.10 ± 0.01 0.13 ± 0.04 Meanb 0.25 ± 0.10 0.25 ± 0.11 0.21 ± 0.12 0.24 ± 0.11 Composite resins Finishing and polishing systems Charisma classic Estelite ∑ quick Sonic fill Meana Biscover LV 0.36 ± 0.03 0.39 ± 0.06 0.37 ± 0.02 0.37 ± 0.04 Dental Finishing Disc 0.24 ± 0.05 0.22 ± 0.03 0.16 ± 0.04 0.21 ± 0.05 No finishing/polishing 0.15 ± 0.03 0.15 ± 0.06 0.10 ± 0.01 0.13 ± 0.04 Meanb 0.25 ± 0.10 0.25 ± 0.11 0.21 ± 0.12 0.24 ± 0.11 aThe difference between three finishing and polishing groups is statistically significant (P < .001). The results of post hoc analysis were as follows: P < .001 for no finishing/polishing vs. Biscover LV, P < .001 for no finishing/polishing vs. Dental Finishing Disc, P < .001 for Dental Finishing Disc vs. Biscover LV. bThe difference between three composite resin groups is statistically significant (P = .021). The results of post hoc analysis were as follows: P = .031 for Estelite ∑ Quick vs. Sonic Fill, P = .053 for Charisma Classic vs. Sonic Fill. Open in new tab Table 2. Mean (±standard deviation) OD 490 measurements for C. albicans adhesions of 36 sample disks with respect to three different composite resins and two different finishing and polishing systems used. Composite resins Finishing and polishing systems Charisma classic Estelite ∑ quick Sonic fill Meana Biscover LV 0.36 ± 0.03 0.39 ± 0.06 0.37 ± 0.02 0.37 ± 0.04 Dental Finishing Disc 0.24 ± 0.05 0.22 ± 0.03 0.16 ± 0.04 0.21 ± 0.05 No finishing/polishing 0.15 ± 0.03 0.15 ± 0.06 0.10 ± 0.01 0.13 ± 0.04 Meanb 0.25 ± 0.10 0.25 ± 0.11 0.21 ± 0.12 0.24 ± 0.11 Composite resins Finishing and polishing systems Charisma classic Estelite ∑ quick Sonic fill Meana Biscover LV 0.36 ± 0.03 0.39 ± 0.06 0.37 ± 0.02 0.37 ± 0.04 Dental Finishing Disc 0.24 ± 0.05 0.22 ± 0.03 0.16 ± 0.04 0.21 ± 0.05 No finishing/polishing 0.15 ± 0.03 0.15 ± 0.06 0.10 ± 0.01 0.13 ± 0.04 Meanb 0.25 ± 0.10 0.25 ± 0.11 0.21 ± 0.12 0.24 ± 0.11 aThe difference between three finishing and polishing groups is statistically significant (P < .001). The results of post hoc analysis were as follows: P < .001 for no finishing/polishing vs. Biscover LV, P < .001 for no finishing/polishing vs. Dental Finishing Disc, P < .001 for Dental Finishing Disc vs. Biscover LV. bThe difference between three composite resin groups is statistically significant (P = .021). The results of post hoc analysis were as follows: P = .031 for Estelite ∑ Quick vs. Sonic Fill, P = .053 for Charisma Classic vs. Sonic Fill. Open in new tab The adhesion of microorganisms on composite surfaces depends on several factors such as surface roughness, surface topography, surface hydrophobicity, electrostatic forces, composition of the material, type of matrix, size and configuration of fillers.5,12 Among these factors, the hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity of dental materials play important role in C. albicans adhesion process.13,14 Therefore, surface contact angle and surface roughness were measured after using different resins and different finishing and polishing techniques in the present study. Then, these techniques and resins’ effects on Candida biofilm formation were investigated. We primarily found that the finishing and polishing system and type of composite resin affect C. albicans adhesion by changing surface roughness and hydrophobicity in dental restorations. In our study, the most hydrophobic surface finishing was obtained with Biscover LV, while the most hydrophilic surface was seen in samples where no finishing and polishing procedure was applied. As the surface contact angle of C. albicans is highly hydrophilic between 23° and 51°, the hydrophilic composite surfaces with lower surface contact angles are expected to be more susceptible to Candida biofilm formation than the hydrophobic composite resin materials.15 But surface finishing obtained with Biscover LV (the most hydrophobic surface finishing) was found to have higher Candida biofilm formation than the non-polished surface. Similarly, Burgers et al.5 found a significant correlation between hydrophobicity and the amount of Candida biofilm formation. The mean surface contact angle values indicating hydrophobicity were 79.79°, 67.63°, and 60.79° for Charisma Classic, Estelite Σ Quick, and Sonic Fill composites, respectively. According to the results of a study by Nikawa et al.15 the peaks of the candida colonization were detected in cases where the surface contact angle was approximately 75°. In our study, we found that Candida biofilm formation was significantly lower in Sonic Fill, a nanohybrid resin, than microhybrid resins Charisma Classic and Estelite ∑ Quick, which is probably due to the significantly lower surface contact angle, i.e. hydrophobicity, in Sonic Fill among composite resins. The mean surface roughness (Ra) values were significantly different between different finishing and polishing systems but not between resin types. Both Biscover LV and Dental Finishing Disc finishing and polishing systems provided significant lower Ra values than no finishing-polishing application. In the present study, we obtained the lowest Candida biofilm formation in the nonpolished samples having Ra above the cutoff value of 0.2 μm.5,16 The mean Ra values after both Biscover LV and Dental Finishing Disc systems were also below 0.2 μm (0.10 μm and 0.12 μm, respectively), but these systems caused more Candida biofilm formation than that of nonpolished samples. This finding is contrary to the common belief that C. albicans presents more on rough surfaces than polished and smooth surfaces and also proved by many studies.5,17,18 Radford et al.17 could not find a direct relationship between surface roughness and adhesion of C. albicans irrespective of the material. Similarly, Burgers et al.5 could not find a clear association between the adhesion of C. albicans and the Ra value. Huh et al.18 reported a very weak relationship between biofilm formation and Ra concluding that Ra is not a key factor for the adhesion of C. albicans. In contrary, in some studies Candida biofilm formation has been shown to be more on rough surfaces.15,19 On the basis of these findings, we think that residual monomers due to inadequate polymerization on composite materials and hydrophobicity are more effective than Ra for Candida biofilm formation. Indeed, it has been reported that finishing and polishing procedures remove a layer of about 200 μm thickness, thus the samples should be polymerized to obtain the initial surface quality by applying halogen or LED light for 10–40 seconds.20 Further studies are required to investigate the impact of surface roughness and hydrophobicity on Candida biofilm formation. Moreover, more independent Candida isolates should be examined in order to observe whether the finishing/polishing systems affect the biofilm formation similarly. The main limitation of this study was its in vitro characteristics, which precludes us reaching to a clinical conclusion on the basis of our findings. The in vitro study design allows simulation of only a limited number of clinical parameters. For example, the sample surfaces were flat, whereas in clinical applications resin composite restorations have various geometric structures such as convex and concave. Therefore, based on our findings, further clinical studies are needed to conclude on the factors affecting Candida biofilm formation on composite restorations. In conclusion, this in vitro study showed that Candida biofilm formation to dental restorations depends on the finishing and polishing system, the composite resin selection, and hydrophobicity more than surface roughness. We think that in restorative dentistry, the amount of residual monomer resulting from polymerization with the critical hydrophobic surface angle is critical for Candida biofilm formation. Although the Candida biofilm formation was found to be low on the nonpolishing surfaces, the surface finishing and polishing processes are especially needed for immunosuppressed patients for the removal of residual monomers. Although Biscover LV and Dental Finishing Disc showed surface roughness, Biscover LV should be preferred in clinical practice for being more hydrophobic than Dental Finishing Disc. Therefore, we think that the polymerization by light application for 20–30 seconds to reduce the amount residual monomer in addition to Dental Finishing Disc systems for finishing and polishing should by applied particularly for immunosuppressed patients. Declaration of interest This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this paper. References 1. Dewhirst FE , Chen T , Izard J et al. . The human oral microbiome . J Bacteriol . 2010 ; 192 : 5002 – 5017 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 2. Ghannoum MA , Jurevic RJ , Mukherjee PK et al. . Characterization of the oral fungal microbiome (mycobiome) in healthy individuals . PLoS Pathog . 2010 ; 6 : e1000713 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 3. Wade WG . The oral microbiome in health and disease . Pharmacol Res . 2013 ; 69 : 137 – 143 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 4. Krom BP , Kidwai S , Ten Cate JM . Candida and other fungal species: forgotten players of healthy oral microbiota . J Dent Res . 2014 ; 93 : 445 – 451 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 5. Burgers R , Schneider-Brachert W , Rosentritt M , Handel G , Hahnel S . Candida albicans adhesion to composite resin materials . Clin Oral Investig . 2009 ; 13 : 293 – 299 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 6. Beldüz N , Kamburoğlu A , Yılmaz Y , Tosun I , Beldüz M , Kara C . Evaluation of Candida albicans biofilm formation on various dental restorative material surfaces . Niger J Clin Pract . 2017 ; 20 : 355 – 360 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 7. Lyon DG , Chick AO . Denture sore mouth and angular cheilitis . Dent Practit . 1957 ; 7 : 212 – 217 . WorldCat 8. Williams D , Lewis M . Pathogenesis and treatment of oral candidosis . J Oral Microbiol 2011 ; 3 : 10 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat 9. Matsuura E , Godoy JS , Bonfim-Mendonça Pde S et al. . In vitro effect of Paullinia cupana (guaraná) on hydrophobicity, biofilm formation, and adhesion of Candida albicans′ to polystyrene, composites, and buccal epithelial cells . Arch Oral Biol . 2015 ; 60 : 471 – 478 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 10. He J , Li Y , Cao Y , Xue J , Zhou X . The oral microbiome diversity and its relation to human diseases . Folia Microbiol (Praha) . 2015 ; 60 : 69 – 80 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 11. Mayahara M , Kataoka R , Arimoto T et al. . Effects of surface roughness and dimorphism on the adhesion of Candida albicans to the surface of resins: scanning electron microscope analyses of mode and number of adhesions . J Investig Clin Dent . 2014 ; 5 : 307 – 312 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 12. Lagree K , Mon HH , Mitchell AP , Ducker WA . Impact of surface topography on biofilm formation by Candida albicans . PLoS One . 2018 ; 13 : e0197925 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 13. Kang SH , Lee HJ , Hong SH , Kim KH , Kwon TY . Influence of surface characteristics on the adhesion of Candida albicans to various denture lining materials . Acta Odontol Scand . 2013 ; 71 : 241 – 248 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 14. Minagi S , Miyake Y , Fujioka Y , Tsuru H , Suginaka H . Cell-surface hydrophobicity of Candida species as determined by the contact-angle and hydrocarbon-adherence methods . J Gen Microbiol . 1986 ; 132 : 1111 – 1115 . Google Scholar PubMed WorldCat 15. Nikawa H , Chen J , Hamada T , Nishimura M , Polyzois G . Candida albicans colonization on thermal cycled maxillofacial polymeric materials in vitro . J Oral Rehabil . 2001 ; 28 : 526 – 533 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 16. Gönülol N , Yilmaz F . The effects of finishing and polishing techniques on surface roughness and color stability of nanocomposites . J Dent . 2012 ; 40 : e64 – 70 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 17. Radford DR , Challacombe SJ , Walter JD . Denture plaque and adherence of Candida albicans to denture-base materials in vivo and in vitro . Crit Rev Oral Biol Med . 1999 ; 10 : 99 – 116 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 18. Huh JB , Lim Y , Youn HI , Chang BM , Lee JY , Shin SW . Effect of denture cleansers on Candida albicans biofilm formation over resilient liners . J Adv Prosthodont . 2014 ; 6 : 109 – 114 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 19. Verran J , Maryan CJ . Retention of Candida albicans on acrylic resin and silicone of different surface topography . J Prosthet Dent . 1997 ; 77 : 535 – 539 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 20. Besnault C , Pradelle-Plasse N , Picard B , Colon P . Effect of a LED versus halogen light cure polymerization on the curing characteristics of three composite resins . Am J Dent . 2003 ; 16 : 323 – 328 . Google Scholar PubMed WorldCat © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The International Society for Human and Animal Mycology. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Impact of various finishing and polishing techniques and composite materials on Candida albicans biofilm formation
JF - Medical Mycology
DO - 10.1093/mmy/myz095
DA - 2020-07-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/impact-of-various-finishing-and-polishing-techniques-and-composite-ZggkmHh9K0
SP - 1
VL - Advance Article
IS - 
DP - DeepDyve
ER -