Adhesiveness Clinical Trial
Official title:
Bar and Ball Joint Overdentures Surface Roughness and Microbial Adherence
Verified date | August 2017 |
Source | Gastrovital |
Contact | n/a |
Is FDA regulated | No |
Health authority | |
Study type | Interventional |
The aim of the study was to compare the surface roughness (Ra) of the implant retained
mandibular bar overdenture (BOD) and the implant retained mandibular ball joint overdenture
(BJOD) in jaw and its relation with the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobe, in
time 30 to 180 days in mouth. Five systems titanium bar CARES® and synOcta® Straumann® Dental
Implant System, Holding AG Inc., Basel, Switzerland (BOD); and five systems joint ball
Klockner® Implant System; Soadco Inc., Escaldes-Engordany; Andorra (BJOD), were used in two
parallel groups of five participants, in an essay to simple blind person. To 30 to 180 days
they were withdrawn and they were evaluated the Ra (Mitutoyo Surfest SJ-301® Mitutoyo
Corporation Inc., Kanagawa, Japan) and the adhesion of microorganisms (CFU/ml).
The Ra:um (the 30th and 180th): BOD, 0.965 - 1.351; BJOD, 1.325 - 2.384. Adhesion: molds and
yeasts, BOD, 2.6 x 102 and 4.6 x 103; BJOD, 3.0 x 102 and 5.3 x 104. Adhesion: mesophyll
aerobe, BOD, 3.8 x 106 and 5.8 x 106; BJOD, 4.3 x 106 and 7.1 x 107. The BOD and BJOD,
present different Ra (P < 0.05) to 30 to 180 days. To 30 days (P = 0.489) differences do not
exist as regards the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobe between both
overdentures. To 180 days (P = 0.723) differences exist as regards the adhesion of mold and
yeast and mesophyll aerobe, being major in BJOD.
Status | Completed |
Enrollment | 10 |
Est. completion date | June 20, 2017 |
Est. primary completion date | January 11, 2017 |
Accepts healthy volunteers | Accepts Healthy Volunteers |
Gender | All |
Age group | 50 Years to 60 Years |
Eligibility |
Inclusion Criteria: - Total edentulous mandible from 50 to 60 years of age - Absence of systemic conditions. Exclusion Criteria: - Hyperplasia and history of periodontal disease - Patients with local and/or systemic antimicrobial treatment within 72 hours prior to evaluation during the study - Signs of severe oral parafunction |
Country | Name | City | State |
---|---|---|---|
n/a |
Lead Sponsor | Collaborator |
---|---|
Gastrovital |
Berger JC, Driscoll CF, Romberg E, Luo Q, Thompson G. Surface roughness of denture base acrylic resins after processing and after polishing. J Prosthodont. 2006 May-Jun;15(3):180-6. — View Citation
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 Jul;13(4):258-69. Review. — View Citation
Brusca MI, Chara O, Sterin-Borda L, Rosa AC. Influence of different orthodontic brackets on adherence of microorganisms in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2007 Mar;77(2):331-6. — View Citation
Busscher HJ, Uyen MH, van Pelt AW, Weerkamp AH, Arends J. Kinetics of adhesion of the oral bacterium Streptococcus sanguis CH3 to polymers with different surface free energies. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1986 May;51(5):910-4. — View Citation
Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC. Physico-chemical interactions in initial microbial adhesion and relevance for biofilm formation. Adv Dent Res. 1997 Apr;11(1):24-32. Review. — View Citation
Daniluk T, Fiedoruk K, Sciepuk M, Zaremba ML, Rozkiewicz D, Cylwik-Rokicka D, Tokajuk G, Kedra BA, Anielska I, Stokowska W, Górska M, Kedra BR. Aerobic bacteria in the oral cavity of patients with removable dentures. Adv Med Sci. 2006;51 Suppl 1:86-90. — View Citation
Degidi M, Piattelli A. Immediately loaded bar-connected implants with an anodized surface inserted in the anterior mandible in a patient treated with diphosphonates for osteoporosis: a case report with a 12-month follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 20 — View Citation
Elsyad MA, Ashmawy TM, Faramawy AG. The influence of resilient liner and clip attachments for bar-implant-retained mandibular overdentures on opposing maxillary ridge. A 5-year randomised clinical trial. J Oral Rehabil. 2014 Jan;41(1):69-77. doi: 10.1111/ — View Citation
Guler AU, Yilmaz F, Kulunk T, Guler E, Kurt S. Effects of different drinks on stainability of resin composite provisional restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Aug;94(2):118-24. — View Citation
He XY, Meurman JH, Kari K, Rautemaa R, Samaranayake LP. In vitro adhesion of Candida species to denture base materials. Mycoses. 2006 Mar;49(2):80-4. — View Citation
Keyf F, Etikan I. Evaluation of gloss changes of two denture acrylic resin materials in four different beverages. Dent Mater. 2004 Mar;20(3):244-51. — View Citation
Lang R, Rosentritt M, Behr M, Handel G. Fracture resistance of PMMA and resin matrix composite-based interim FPD materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2003 Jul-Aug;16(4):381-4. — View Citation
Mendonça MJ, Machado AL, Giampaolo ET, Pavarina AC, Vergani CE. Weight loss and surface roughness of hard chairside reline resins after toothbrushing: influence of postpolymerization treatments. Int J Prosthodont. 2006 May-Jun;19(3):281-7. — View Citation
Panyayong W, Oshida Y, Andres CJ, Barco TM, Brown DT, Hovijitra S. Reinforcement of acrylic resins for provisional fixed restorations. Part III: effects of addition of titania and zirconia mixtures on some mechanical and physical properties. Biomed Mater — View Citation
Pinna A, Zanetti S, Sechi LA, Carta F. In vitro adherence of Staphylococcus epidermidis, Serratia marcescens, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa to AcrySof intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2005 Dec;31(12):2430-1. — View Citation
Portmann M, Glauser R. Report of a case receiving full-arch rehabilitation in both jaws using immediate implant loading protocols: a 1-year resonance frequency analysis follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2006;8(1):25-31. — View Citation
Quirynen M, Bollen CM. The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol. 1995 Jan;22(1):1-14. Review. — View Citation
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(1):99-116. Review. — View Citation
Richmond R, Macfarlane TV, McCord JF. An evaluation of the surface changes in PMMA biomaterial formulations as a result of toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. Dent Mater. 2004 Feb;20(2):124-32. — View Citation
Ryan CS, Kleinberg I. Bacteria in human mouths involved in the production and utilization of hydrogen peroxide. Arch Oral Biol. 1995 Aug;40(8):753-63. — View Citation
Shimizu K, Kobayakawa S, Tsuji A, Tochikubo T. Biofilm formation on hydrophilic intraocular lens material. Curr Eye Res. 2006 Dec;31(12):989-97. — View Citation
Stellingsma K, Slagter AP, Stegenga B, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJ. Masticatory function in patients with an extremely resorbed mandible restored with mandibular implant-retained overdentures: comparison of three types of treatment protocols. J Oral Rehabil. — View Citation
Tada A, Watanabe T, Yokoe H, Hanada N, Tanzawa H. Oral bacteria influenced by the functional status of the elderly people and the type and quality of facilities for the bedridden. J Appl Microbiol. 2002;93(3):487-91. — View Citation
Uzun G, Keyf F. The effect of fiber reinforcement type and water storage on strength properties of a provisional fixed partial denture resin. J Biomater Appl. 2003 Apr;17(4):277-86. — View Citation
van Kampen F, Cune M, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003 De — View Citation
Visser A, Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A. Implant-retained mandibular overdentures versus conventional dentures: 10 years of care and aftercare. Int J Prosthodont. 2006 May-Jun;19(3):271-8. — View Citation
Waltimo T, Tanner J, Vallittu P, Haapasalo M. Adherence of Candida albicans to the surface of polymethylmethacrylate--E glass fiber composite used in dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 1999 Jan-Feb;12(1):83-6. — View Citation
Yap AU, Mah MK, Lye CP, Loh PL. Influence of dietary simulating solvents on the hardness of provisional restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2004 May;20(4):370-6. — View Citation
Yildirim MS, Hasanreisoglu U, Hasirci N, Sultan N. Adherence of Candida albicans to glow-discharge modified acrylic denture base polymers. J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Jul;32(7):518-25. — View Citation
* Note: There are 29 references in all — Click here to view all references
Type | Measure | Description | Time frame | Safety issue |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary | Average values of surface roughness (Ra) and correlation of independent test in implant-retained mandibular bar overdentures (BOD) 30 - 180 days. | The average Ra Group 1: BOD titanium bar CARES® and synOcta Straumann® in 30 days: 0.965um. In 180 days: 1.351um. 95% confidence and Shapiro Wilk (P > 0.05), determines normal distribution. Correlation of independent test (P < 0.05) 30 days (P= 0.000) and 180 days (P=0.001) determined different Ra. Ll: Lower limit; Ul: Upper limit. | Change from 30 to 180 days | |
Primary | Average values of surface roughness (Ra) and correlation of independents tests in implant-retained ball joint overdentures (BJOD) 30 - 180 days. | The average Ra Group 2: BJOD Klockner® in 30 days: 1.325um. 180 days: 2.384 um. 95% confidence and Shapiro Wilk (P > 0.05), determines normal distribution. Correlation of independent test (P < 0.05) 30 days (P=0.000) and 180 days (P=0.000) determined different Ra. Ll: Lower limit; Ul: Upper limit. | Change from 30 to 180 days | |
Secondary | Average values of mold and yeast adhesion and correlation of independents tests in implant-retained mandibular bar overdentures (BOD) and implant-retained mandibular ball joint overdentures (BJOD) 30 - 180 days | Average adhesion values of mold and yeast. Group 1 (BOD): 30 days: 2.6 x 102 CFU/ml. Group 2 (BJOD): 30 days: 3.0 x 102 CFU/ml. Group 1 (BOD): 180 days: 4.6 x 103 CFU/ml. Group 2 (BJOD): 180 days: 5.3 x 104 CFU/ml. 95% confidence and Shapiro Wilk (P > 0.05), determines normal distribution. Correlation of independent tests 30 days (P > 0.05) BOD (P=0.051) y BJOD (P=0.052) showed no different adherence. For 180 days (P < 0.05) BOD (P=0.025) y BJOD (P=0.027) presented different adhesion. Ll: Lower limit; Ul: Upper limit | Change from 30 to 180 days | |
Secondary | Average values of mesophyll aerobe adhesion and correlation of independents tests in implant-retained mandibular bar overdentures (BOD) and implant-retained mandibular ball joint overdentures (BJOD) 30 - 180 days | Average adhesion values of mesophyll aerobe. Group 1 (BOD): 30 days: 3.8 x 106 CFU/ml. Group 2 (BJOD): 30 days: 4.3 x 106 CFU/ml. Group 1 (BOD): 180 days: 5.8 x 106 CFU/ml. Group 2 (BJOD): 180 days: 7.1 x 107 CFU/ml. 95% confidence and Shapiro Wilk (P > 0.05), determines normal distribution. Correlation of independent tests 30 days (P > 0.05) BOD (P=0.052) y BJOD (P=0.053) showed no different adherence. For 180 days (P < 0.05) BOD (P=0.000) y BJOD (P=0.000) presented different adhesion. Ll: Lower limit; Ul: Upper limit. | Change from 30 to 180 days |
Status | Clinical Trial | Phase | |
---|---|---|---|
Completed |
NCT01841801 -
Evaluation of Experimental and Commercial Air-Activated, Adhesive Backed Heat Patches
|
N/A | |
Completed |
NCT01841788 -
Evaluation of Experimental Heat Patch
|
N/A |