Antimicrobial effects of nano titanium dioxide and disinfectants on maxillofacial silicones.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Deficient hygiene of maxillofacial prostheses can be a source of infection, and various disinfectants, including nano-oxides, have been suggested for the disinfection of silicone prostheses. While maxillofacial silicones involving nano-oxides at different sizes and concentrations have been evaluated in terms of their mechanical and physical properties, reports are lacking on the antimicrobial effect of nano titanium dioxide (TiO2) incorporated into maxillofacial silicones contaminated by different biofilms. PURPOSE The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the antimicrobial effects of 6 different disinfectants and nano TiO2 incorporation into maxillofacial silicone contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Candida albicans biofilms. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 258 silicone specimens (129 pure silicones and 129 nano TiO2-incorporated silicones) were fabricated. Specimens in each silicone group (with or without nano TiO2) were divided into 7 disinfectant groups (control, 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate, 4% chlorhexidine gluconate, 1% sodium hypochlorite, neutral soap, 100% white vinegar, and effervescent) in each biofilm group. Contaminated specimens were disinfected, and the suspension of each specimen was incubated at 37 °C for 24 hours. Proliferated colonies were recorded in colony-forming units per mL (CFU/mL). The differences in microbial levels among specimens were evaluated to test the effect of the type of silicone and the disinfectant (α=.05). RESULTS Significant difference was found among disinfectants regardless of the silicone type (P<.05). Nano TiO2 incorporation showed an antimicrobial effect on S aureus, E coli, and C albicans biofilms. Nano TiO2 incorporated silicone cleaned with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate had statistically less C albicans than pure silicone. Using white vinegar or 4% chlorhexidine gluconate led to no E coli on either silicone. Nano TiO2 incorporated silicone cleaned with effervescent had fewer S aureus or C albicans biofilms. CONCLUSIONS The tested disinfectants and nano TiO2 incorporation into silicone were effective against most of the microorganisms used in this study

Evaluating Postdoctoral Dental Candidates: Assessing the Need and Recommendations for a National Qualifying Examination

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/153604/1/jddj002203372011756tb05098x.pd

Using Peek as a Framework Material for Maxillofacial Silicone Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study

There are often bonding problems between acrylic resins and silicone. PEEK (polyetheretherketone), which is a high-performance polymer, has great potential for the implant, and fixed or removable prosthodontics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments on PEEK to be bonded to maxillofacial silicone elastomers. A total of 48 specimens were fabricated from either PEEK or PMMA (Polymethylmethacrylate) (n = 8). PMMA specimens acted as a positive control group. PEEK specimens were divided into five study groups as surface treatments as control PEEK, silica-coating, plasma etching, grinding, or nano-second fiber laser. Surface topographies were evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A platinum-primer was used on top of all specimens including control groups prior to silicone polymerization. The peel bond strength of the specimens to a platinum-type silicone elastomer was tested at a cross-head speed of 5 mm/min. The data were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05). The control PEEK group showed the highest bond strength (p p > 0.05). The lowest bond strength was seen in the laser group, which was not statistically different from silica-coating (p > 0.05), and statistically different from control PEEK, grinding, or plasma groups (p p < 0.05). All specimens exhibited adhesive failure after a peel test. The study results indicate that PEEK could serve as a potential alternative substructure for implant-retained silicone prostheses