CAD/CAM BLOKLARDAN ELDE EDİLEN RESTORASYONLARDA BİTİM İŞLEMLERİNİN YÜZEY PÜRÜZLÜLÜĞÜNE VE SİTOTOKSİSİTEYE ETKİSİ

Amaç; Günümüzde teknolojik gelişmeler CAD/CAM sistemlerine ulaşımı kolaylaştırmakta ve kullanımı yaygınlaştırmaktadır. CAD/CAM sistemlerinde restoratif amaçlı olarak kullanılan blokların kompozisyonları, yüzey özellikleri ve yoğunluğu restorasyonun işlenmesi sonrası farklı yüzey özellikleri sergilemelerine neden olabilir. Sitotoksisite, dokularla temas halindeki materyallerin yapısal bileşimi ve yüzey özellikleri nedeniyle hücrelerde kalıcı fonksiyonel bozukluğa veya yok oluşa yol açan bir dizi olaydır. CAD/CAM sistemleri kullanılarak elde edilen restorasyonlarda yüzey incelemeleri ve sitotoksisite değerlendirmeleri henüz kısıtlıdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı 2 farklı CAD/CAM bloktan elde edilen 4 farklı bitim yüzeyin pürüzlülüğünü profilometre cihazı kullanılarak incelemek ve bu yüzeylerin fibroblast hücrelerinin sağ kalımına etkisini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem; Feldspatik ve nanoseramik CAD/CAM bloklar, karbon separe ile kesilerek toplam 40 adet örnek elde edildi. Tüm örneklere sırasıyla 300 ve 600 grit partiküllü zımpara uygulanarak tesviye yapıldı. Elde edilen 10’arlı 4 alt gruba mekanik polisaj, glaze ve bond işlemleri uygulandı. Sitotoksisite testleri için kullanılan fare fibroblast hücreleri kültüre edildi. Hücre sağ kalımlarının optik yoğunluğu, 630 nm dalga boyunda spektrofotometrik yöntemle ölçüldü. Bulgular;En yüksek pürüzlülük değerleri nanoseramik bloklardan elde edilen bonding işlemi uygulanmamış örneklerde gözlemlendi (1,073±0,014 µ). En az pürüzlülük değeri feldspatik bloklardan elde edilen, glaze uygulanan örneklerde gözlemlendi. En yüksek Optik yoğunluk değerleri feldspatik bloklardan elde edilen glaze işlemi uygulanmış örneklerde gözlemlendi (0,821±0,054 mg/ml). Sonuç;Limitasyonlarıyla birlikte bu çalışmanın sonuçları, her ne kadar estetik ve yeterli derecede dayanıklı da olsa nanoseramik materyallerin preperasyon sonrası yüksek pürüzlülük ve sitotoksisite değerleri ortaya çıkardığını göstermektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler; Bilgisayar detekli tasarım, hücresel sitotoksisite, seramikler Abstract Aim;Technological developments facilitate CAD / CAM systems and make widespread usage. The composition, surface properties and density of the blocks used for restorative purposes in CAD/CAM systems may cause them to exhibit different surface properties after the milling process. Cytotoxicity is a series of events that lead to permanent functional impairment or destruction in cells due to the structural composition and surface properties of materials in contact with tissues. Surface investigations and cytotoxicity assessments are still limited fabricated with CAD/CAM systems. The aim of this study is to examine the roughness of 4 different surfaces obtained from 2 different CAD/CAM blocks using a profilometer device and to evaluate the effects of these surfaces on the survival of fibroblast cells. Materials and Methods;Feldspathic and nanoseramic CAD/CAM blocks were cut with carbon disc to obtain a total of 40 samples. All samples were smooted by applying 300 and 600 grit sandpaper, respectively. Mechanical polishing, glazing and bonding processes were applied to 4 subgroups. Mouse fibroblast cells were cultured for cytotoxicity tests. The optical density of cell survival was measured by spectrophotometric method at 630 nm wavelength. Results;The highest roughness values were observed in non-bonded samples obtained from nanoseramic blocks (1,073±0,014 µ). The least roughness value was observed in glaze samples obtained from feldspathic blocks. The highest optical density values were observed in glaze treated samples obtained from feldspathic blocks (0.821±0.054 mg/ml). Conclusion;Within the limitations of this study, despite the aesthetically pleasure and sufficient durability, nanoseramic materials produce high roughness and cytotoxicity values after milling process. Keywords; Computer-aided design, cell cytoxicity, ceramics

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Bilgisayar detekli tasarım, hücresel sitotoksisite, seramikler

PDF

___

1. Rashid H. The effect of surface roughness on ceramics used in dentistry: A review of literature. Eur J Dent. 2014;8(4):571-9.
2. Bui FQ, Almeida-da-Silva CLC, Huynh B, Trinh A, Liu J, Woodward J, et al. Association between periodontal pathogens and systemic disease. Biomed J. 2019;42(1):27-35.
3. Stepanovska J, Matejka R, Rosina J, Bacakova L, Kolarova H. Treatments for enhancing the biocompatibility of titanium implants. Biomed Pap. 2020;164(1):23-33.
4. McGinley EL, Coleman DC, Moran GP, Fleming GJP. Effects of surface finishing conditions on the biocompatibility of a nickel-chromium dental casting alloy. Dent Mater. 2011;27(7):637-50.
5. Wang YX, Robertson JL, Spillman WB, Jr., Claus RO. Effects of the chemical structure and the surface properties of polymeric biomaterials on their biocompatibility. Pharm Res. 2004;21(8):1362-73.
6. Klausner LH, Cartwright CB, Charbeneau GT. Polished versus autoglazed porcelain surfaces. J Prosthet Dent. 1982;47(2):157-62.
7. Patterson CJ, McLundie AC, Stirrups DR, Taylor WG. Efficacy of a porcelain refinishing system in restoring surface finish after grinding with fine and extra-fine diamond burs. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(3):402-6.
8. Rosenstiel SF, Baiker MA, Johnston WM. Comparison of glazed and polished dental porcelain. Int J Prosthodont. 1989;2(6):524-9.
9. al-Wahadni A, Martin DM. Glazing and finishing dental porcelain: a literature review. J Can Dent Assoc. 1998;64(8):580-3.
10. Al-Marzok MI, Al-Azzawi HJ. The effect of the surface roughness of porcelain on the adhesion of oral Streptococcus mutans. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2009;10(6):E017-24.
11. Sarac D, Sarac YS, Yuzbasioglu E, Bal S. The effects of porcelain polishing systems on the color and surface texture of feldspathic porcelain. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(2):122-8.
12. Ferruzzi F, Ferrairo BM, Piras FF, Borges AFS, Rubo JH. Fatigue survival and damage modes of lithium disilicate and resin nanoceramic crowns. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019;27.
13. Scribante A, Bollardi M, Chiesa M, Poggio C, Colombo M. Flexural Properties and Elastic Modulus of Different Esthetic Restorative Materials: Evaluation after Exposure to Acidic Drink. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019.
14. Najeeb S, Khurshid Z, Zafar MS, Khan AS, Zohaib S, Marti JMN, et al. Modifications in Glass Ionomer Cements: Nano-Sized Fillers and Bioactive Nanoceramics. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17(7).
15. Spitznagel FA, Boldt J, Gierthmuehlen PC. CAD/CAM Ceramic Restorative Materials for Natural Teeth. J Dent Res. 2018;97(10):1082-91.
16. Gonulol N, Yilmaz F. The effects of finishing and polishing techniques on surface roughness and color stability of nanocomposites. J Dent. 2012;40 Suppl 2:e64-70.
17. Goldberg M. In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental resin components: a review. Clin Oral Investig. 2008;12(1):1-8.
18. Goldberg M, Dimitrova-Nakov S, Schmalz G. BPA from dental resin material: where are we going with restorative and preventive dental biomaterials? Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(2):347-9.
19. 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;13(4):258-69.
20. Sanches RP, Otani C, Damiao AJ, Miyakawa W. AFM characterization of bovine enamel and dentine after acid-etching. Micron. 2009;40(4):502-6.
21. Schweikl H, Hiller KA, Bolay C, Kreissl M, Kreismann W, Nusser A, et al. Cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of dental composite materials. Biomaterials. 2005;26(14):1713-9.
22. Annunziata M, Aversa R, Apicella A, Annunziata A, Apicella D, Buonaiuto C, et al. In vitro biological response to a light-cured composite when used for cementation of composite inlays. Dent Mater. 2006;22(12):1081-5.
23. Geurtsen W, Leyhausen G. Biological aspects of root canal filling materials--histocompatibility,cytotoxicity, and mutagenicity. Clin Oral Investig. 1997;1(1):5-11.
24. Cao T, Saw TY, Heng BC, Liu H, Yap AU, Ng ML. Comparison of different test models for the assessment of cytotoxicity of composite resins. J Appl Toxicol. 2005;25(2):101-8.