Maciel PP, de Lima Gouveia C, Marques IL, Maciel PP, Lima JMD, Castellano LRC, Bonan RF, Bonan PRF, Batista AUD. Antimicrobial effect and the mechanical and surface properties of a self-disinfecting and a chlorhexidine-incorporated Type IV dental stone.
J Prosthet Dent 2023;
129:365.e1-365.e8. [PMID:
36462969 DOI:
10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.10.014]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2022] [Revised: 10/20/2022] [Accepted: 10/21/2022] [Indexed: 12/05/2022]
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Stone casts are subject to contamination, but whether disinfectants incorporated into the stone are effective is unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the antimicrobial activity and the mechanical and surface properties of self-disinfecting gypsum (SDG) and gypsum mixed with 2% chlorhexidine (GCHX).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Antimicrobial action was evaluated using the diffusion-disk technique on Streptococcus aureus and Candida albicans 1 hour and 24 hours after pouring the gypsum. The groups were SDG, GCHX, a positive control (PC) of gypsum mixed with distilled water, and a negative control (NC) of filter paper disk soaked with 2% chlorhexidine; n=8. Inhibition halos were measured using the ImageJ software program and statistically analyzed using the repeated measures mixed ANOVA with time×group interaction. Compressive strength (CS) in MPa and surface roughness (SR) in μm (parameters: Ra - roughness average; and Sa - 3-dimensional (3D) arithmetic mean of the surface profile) tests were performed to characterize the specimens (evaluated groups: SDG, GCHX, and PC; n=10). CS data were analyzed by a 2-way ANOVA with time×group interaction, and SR data by a 1-way ANOVA (α=.05).
RESULTS
For S aureus, there were differences between GCHX and SDG at 1 hour and 24 hours (P<.05), but no significant differences were found for C albicans (P>.05). GCHX was better than PC, except for C albicans, and showed a reduction in CS when compared with PC and SDG (P<.05) at all time intervals. The SR of GCHX increased (Ra:1.76, Sa:2.08) when compared with PC (Ra:0.89, Sa:1.12) and SDG (Ra:1.03, Sa:1.35) (Ra: P<.004 and Sa: P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The antimicrobial activity of GCHX against S aureus was better than that of SDG, but neither had an effect against C albicans. As for CS and SR, GCHX presented a decrease in properties when compared with PC and SDG but was within the American Dental Association #25 specification values.
Collapse