Comparison of the Performance Parameters of BioHPP® and Biocetal® Used in the Production of Prosthetic Restorations in Dentistry-Part II: Physicochemical and Microbiological Tests: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

The natural aging process of the human organism leads to both physiological and pathological changes, including tooth loss. This requires dental prosthetic interventions aimed at restoring patients' quality of life. The use of such prostheses necessitates selection of sufficiently strong, aesthetic and biocompatible materials, which also offer ease of shaping. The market for materials used in prosthetic applications offers a wide array of options; however, selection of the most suitable material for specific clinical scenarios can be challenging for dental professionals. This paper continues the comprehensive investigation of the physiochemical and mechanical/functional properties of two commonly used prosthetic-Biocetal and BioHPP-offering a comparative analysis of their characteristics to provide valuable insights for dentists and prosthodontists. The study focuses on in vitro analyses of physiochemical parameters, including density, water sorption, contact angle, and surface roughness. The structure of the materials was examined via scanning electron microscopy. Additionally, microbiological studies were performed using strains of Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans. Statistical analysis was performed using Shapiro-Wilk test, Q-Q plot analysis, Grubbs test, and Student's T-test (p < 0.05). The findings indicate that BioHPP demonstrates superior physiochemical and microbiological properties. However, Biocetal exhibit better surface characteristics. Despite its high performance, BioHPP presents certain drawbacks, which may influence dentists' material choice in specific clinical cases, particularly for certain prosthetic restorations.

Keywords: BioHPP; Biocetal; SEM; bacteria; contact angle; density; dentistry; surface roughness; water absorption.

Figure 1

Scheme showing the three-phase boundary, where θ_C—liquid contact angle, γ_L—liquid surface free energy, γ_S—solid surface free energy, γ_V—air surface free energy.

Figure 2

Diagram showing the progressive and receding angle.

Figure 3

Example results of contact angle measurements with distilled water: (a) Biocetal—measuring drop, (b) Biocetal—graph of contact angle changes as a function of time, (c) BioHPP—measuring drop, (d) BioHPP—graph of contact angle changes as a function of time.

Figure 4

Surface of Biocetal ×100 (a,b) and BioHPP ×75 (c,d) samples.

Figure 5

Surface roughness profiles of (a) Biocetal and (b) BioHPP.

Figure 6

BioHPP sample. Clusters of ceramic microfillers are visible. (a) ×500 zoom; (b) ×1000 zoom; (c) ×2000 zoom; (d) ×5000 zoom.

Figure 6

BioHPP sample. Clusters of ceramic microfillers are visible. (a) ×500 zoom; (b) ×1000 zoom; (c) ×2000 zoom; (d) ×5000 zoom.

Figure 7

SEM image of the opposite part of the BioHPP brittle fracture. The cavities from the broken clusters of ceramic microfiller are visible. (a) ×500 magnification; (b) ×2000 magnification.

Figure 8

SEM image of the Biocetal sample. A more homogeneous surface of the material is visible compared to BioHPP. (a) ×500 approximation; (b) ×1000 approximation; (c) ×2000 approximation; (d) ×5000 approximation.

Figure 8

SEM image of the Biocetal sample. A more homogeneous surface of the material is visible compared to BioHPP. (a) ×500 approximation; (b) ×1000 approximation; (c) ×2000 approximation; (d) ×5000 approximation.