CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03256409Updated Aug 22, 2017

Bar and Ball Joint Overdentures Surface Roughness and Microbial Adherence

An interventional study of Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe and Surface Roughness (Ra) in Adhesiveness, sponsored by Gastrovital. Completed. Open to participants aged 50 Years to 60 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-08-22.

Sponsored by Gastrovital · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
10
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
50 Years to 60 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

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 To 30 to 180 days they were withdrawn and they were evaluated the Ra (Mitutoyo Surfest SJ-301® Mitutoyo Corporation Inc., Kanagawa, Japan) and the adhesion of microorganisms (CFU/ml).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.

Read the detailed description

Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe to BOD and BJOD, Surface roughness (Ra), and Statistical Analyses Microbial populations have been controlled in the saliva at initial time and adherence at 30 to 180 days after the overdentures in the mouth. The saliva sample was obtained from the patient in a sterile sputum collection bottle through a sterile solution. The overdenture samples were extracted and processed for analysis. Each sample was submerged in ¼ sterile Ringer and subjected to vigorous ultrasound shaking. From each of the microbial suspensions, successive dilutions were made to determine the total number of viable microorganisms present. Total count of mold and yeast and total count of mesophyll aerobe were performed.

The surface roughness of BOD and BJOD was determined with the rugosimeter the Mitutoyo Surfest SJ-301® (Mitutoyo Corporation Inc., Kanagawa, Japan), through a displacement force of 4mN and of the tray to 0.5 mm/s and back to 1 mm/s (Murtra and Arcís,1999). The roughness profile Ra was evaluated and determined in microns (ųm) through five readings for each of the samples in the study respectively.

The results of BOD and BJOD were compared for the determination of Ra and the adherence of mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe. For this, we used the statistics Shapiro-Wilk, T and the Pearson Correlation Coefficient to determinate the relationship between the study variables.

02

Conditions studied

  • Adhesiveness

Keywords

  • biomaterials
  • methacrylates
  • microbiology
  • implant dentistry/implantology
  • removable prosthodontics
  • clinical studies/trials
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
50 Years to 60 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • Total edentulous mandible from 50 to 60 years of age
  • Absence of systemic conditions.

Exclusion criteria

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
04

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Investigator)
Enrollment
10 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Five Bar overdenture: BOD

    Five systems titanium bar CARES® and synOcta® Straumann® Dental Implant System, Holding AG Inc., Basel, Switzerland (Bar overdenture: Group 1) For the manufacture of the overdentures it was used as material of choice Lucitone 199® (Dentsply International Inc. York, PA) and for the adaptation of the retention systems it was used Softreliner Tough Soft® Tocuyama Dental Corporation Inc., Japan. The working protocol for determining the BOD Ra and the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobics was carried out entirely by an investigator. Patients were randomly assigned to group 1. The BOD were removed at 30 - 180 days for surface roughness evaluation (Ra:ųm) and the evaluation of the adhesion of mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe (CFU/ml).

    Other: Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe · Other: Surface Roughness (Ra)

  • Experimental
    Five Ball Joint Overdenture: BJOD

    Five systems ball joint Klockner® Implant System; Soadco Inc., Escaldes-Engordany, Andorra (Ball Joint Overdenture: Group 2) For the manufacture of the overdentures it was used as material of choice Lucitone 199® (Dentsply International Inc. York, PA) and for the adaptation of the retention systems it was used Softreliner Tough Soft® Tocuyama Dental Corporation Inc., Japan. The working protocol for determining the BJOD Ra and the adhesion of molds and yeasts and mesophyll aerobics was carried out entirely by an investigator. Patients were randomly assigned to group 2. The s BJOD were removed at 30 - 180 days for surface roughness evaluation (Ra:ųm) and the evaluation of the adhesion of mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe (CFU/ml).

    Other: Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe · Other: Surface Roughness (Ra)

Interventions

  • OtherAdherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe

    Adherence mold and yeast and mesophyll aerobe to BOD and BJOD Microbial populations have been controlled in the saliva at initial time and adherence at 30 - 180 days after the overdentures in the mouth. The saliva sample was obtained from the patient in a sterile sputum collection bottle through a sterile solution. The overdenture samples were extracted and processed for analysis. Each sample was submerged in ¼ sterile Ringer and subjected to vigorous ultrasound shaking. From each of the microbial suspensions, successive dilutions were made to determine the total number of viable microorganisms present. Total count of mold and yeast and total count of mesophyll aerobe were performed.

    Also known as: Five BOD and Five BJOD

  • OtherSurface Roughness (Ra)

    The surface roughness of BOD and BJOD was determined with the rugosimeter the Mitutoyo Surfest SJ-301® (Mitutoyo Corporation Inc., Kanagawa, Japan), through a displacement force of 4mN and of the tray to 0.5 mm/s and back to 1 mm/s (Murtra and Arcís,1999). The roughness profile Ra was evaluated and determined in microns (ųm) through five readings for each of the samples in the study respectively.

    Also known as: Five BOD and Five BJOD

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. 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.

    Time frame: Change from 30 to 180 days

  2. 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.

    Time frame: Change from 30 to 180 days

Secondary outcomes

  1. 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

    Time frame: Change from 30 to 180 days

  2. 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.

    Time frame: Change from 30 to 180 days

06

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

07

References and documents

Publications

  • 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. 2005 Jun;32(6):403-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01242.x. PubMed 15899018 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.2310/j.6480.2005.00027.x. PubMed 16681490 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 16752625 ↗
  • 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. 2003;5(4):269-72. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00210.x. PubMed 15127998 ↗
  • 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/joor.12120. Epub 2013 Dec 20. PubMed 24354686 ↗
  • 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 Dec;14(6):720-6. doi: 10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00961.x. PubMed 15015948 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 12956492 ↗
  • 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 Eng. 2002;12(4):353-66. PubMed 12652030 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1177/0885328203017004003. PubMed 12797420 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.06.001. PubMed 15019452 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.05.004. PubMed 16046965 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(97)80038-3. PubMed 11696906 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00098.x. PubMed 16681500 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00099-X. PubMed 15209229 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(03)00083-6. PubMed 14706795 ↗
  • Mendonca 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. PubMed 16752627 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1177/08959374970110011301. PubMed 9524439 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1995.tb01765.x. PubMed 7706534 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1177/10454411990100010501. PubMed 10759429 ↗
  • 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. PubMed 10196833 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0507.2006.01189.x. PubMed 16466438 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01454.x. PubMed 15975132 ↗
  • Daniluk T, Fiedoruk K, Sciepuk M, Zaremba ML, Rozkiewicz D, Cylwik-Rokicka D, Tokajuk G, Kedra BA, Anielska I, Stokowska W, Gorska M, Kedra BR. Aerobic bacteria in the oral cavity of patients with removable dentures. Adv Med Sci. 2006;51 Suppl 1:86-90. PubMed 17458066 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1128/aem.51.5.910-914.1986. PubMed 3729392 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2005.08.049. No abstract available. PubMed 16473245 ↗
  • Shimizu K, Kobayakawa S, Tsuji A, Tochikubo T. Biofilm formation on hydrophilic intraocular lens material. Curr Eye Res. 2006 Dec;31(12):989-97. doi: 10.1080/02713680601038816. PubMed 17169836 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.2319/0003-3219(2007)077[0331:IODOBO]2.0.CO;2. PubMed 17319770 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1016/0003-9969(95)00029-o. PubMed 7487577 ↗
  • 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. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2002.01702.x. PubMed 12174048 ↗

Study documents

  • Study protocol · Jan 5, 2016
  • Statistical analysis plan · Jan 5, 2016
  • Informed consent form · Jan 11, 2016

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03256409
Lead sponsor
Gastrovital
Responsible party
Valenzuela-Narváez Rocío Violeta (PhD DDS, Gastrovital) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 22, 2017
Start date
Jan 5, 2016
Primary completion
Jan 11, 2017
Completion
Jun 20, 2017
Last update
Aug 22, 2017

Study contacts

Rocío Violeta Valenzuela-Narváez, PhD DDS
principal investigator · CONCYTEC

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2017. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion