Effectiveness of Denture Cleansers on Candida albicans Biofilm on Conventionally Fabricated, Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing-Milled, and Rapid-Prototyped Denture Base Resins: An In Vitro Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Conventionally fabricated denture base resins have been used for over 150 years. Newer denture base resins can provide a superior fit and may be customized to the patient's characteristics, but the literature on their cleansibility remains limited. The oral cavity can be a hub for thousands of microflora. The maintenance of complete dentures by edentulous patients depends not only on the maintenance of the patient but also on the material used, biofilm adherence, and polishability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cuboid specimens of 10 × 5 × 2 mm were designed using the Meshmixer version 3.5 software (Meshmixer, Australia). The standard tessellation (STL) file was imported and sent for printing (NextDent, Netherlands) (Group 1), milling in polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (Ivotion, Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein) (Group 2), and wax milling (Upcera, China), followed by flasking, counter flasking, and packing using heat-cured acrylic resin (DPI, India) (Group 3). The obtained specimens were polished using pumice and sterilized using a UV sterilization unit. The specimens were then immersed in a suspension of candida broth. After three days of biofilm formation, a colony count was performed and noted as colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL). Specimens were treated using Secure denture cleansing tablets (Ghent, New York), table salt (iodized table salt, Tata, India), Clinsodent (ICPA, Mumbai, India), and Polident denture cleansing powder (Polident, Ontario, Canada). A colony count was done after treatment, and the data were tabulated. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS software to compare the efficiency of denture cleansers in all three groups, and statistical significance was set at 0.05. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was done to confirm the normality of the data, followed by a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test to compare the efficiency of denture cleansers on the removal of candida colonies. RESULTS: Milled denture base resins showed a significantly lower colony count when compared to printed and conventionally fabricated denture base resins. The denture cleansers showed high efficacy in all groups, with the most significant being Secure, which showed a mean difference ranging from 8.114 to 9.887 CFU/mL, followed by Clinsodent, showing a mean of 6.699-9.863 CFU/mL, followed closely by Polident, showing 4.964-7.114 CFU/mL, followed by table salt, being 5.254-8.920 CFU/mL. The 95% confidence interval confirmed statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The highest candida colony count was demonstrated by the conventional, followed by rapid prototyping, and was least with milled denture base resins. Following treatment with denture cleansers, Secure demonstrated almost complete eradication of colonies, making it the most effective option. Salt exhibited the lowest efficiency, followed closely by Polident and Clinsodent, and the most effective was Secure denture cleanser.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".