Antimicrobial Effect and Microbial Adherence to Maxillofacial Prosthetic Materials
Authors: Rahman Farhana , Eusifzai Sumaiya Zabin , Jamayet Nafij Bin , Johari Yanti , Ariffin Zaihan , Mohamad Suharni , Kohli Shivani , Alharbi Ibrahim Mohammed , Almuzaini Njoud Hussain , Alghemlas Hatim Abdullh , Alqahtani Hezam Mohammed , Shrivastava Deepti , Srivast Kumar Chandan , Alam Mohammad Khursheed 
Published: October 2023

Abstract

Background & Objectives: The attachment of microorganisms to the maxillofacial prosthetic's surfaces might result in infections of the surrounding tissues causing irritation and discomfort to the patients. Therefore, it is advantageous to use particular material for fabricating maxillofacial prosthesis that has antibacterial properties or display the least microbial adherence. The goal of this study was to assess and compare the antibacterial impact, surface roughness, and microbial adhesion of indigenously created modified polymethyl methacrylate (m-PMMA) to a commercially produced polymethyl methacrylate (c-PMMA), silicone A-2000, and silicone A-2186.
Material & Methods: A case-control study design was adopted. Based on the prosthetic materials, four study groups (I to IV) were formed comprising of modified polymethyl methacrylate (m-PMMA), commercially produced polymethyl methacrylate (c-PMMA), silicone A-2000, and silicone A-2186 respectively. A total of 40 samples with 10 samples for each study group were assessed. The three bacteria Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus), Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans), and Candida albicans (C. albicans) were tested against these four materials intended to be used in the fabrication of maxillofacial prosthetic. Agar diffusion test, direct colony counting, and profilometer were used to examine the antimicrobial impact, microbial adhesion and surface roughness of maxillofacial prosthetic materials respectively. Surface roughness and microbial adhesion were also examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Statistical analysis was done using one-way analysis of variance and multivariate analysis of variance.
Results: Regarding antibacterial activity, it was found that none of the materials under test prevented the growth of any of the microbial strains. An examination of surface roughness between PMMA and silicone elastomers revealed a significant difference (p<0.05). Additionally, there was a substantial difference in the bacterial adherence to the investigated materials, with silicone elastomers having much higher colony-forming units (CFU) of S. aureus and S. mutans than PMMA (p>0.017). Between silicone elastomers and PMMA, no discernible change in C. albicans adhesion was found.
Conclusion: This study signifies that among the four-material m-PMMA has the potential to reduce the risk of infection as it causes less microbial adherence though it does not exhibit adequate antimicrobial effect; whereas, there is no preferences over silicone A-2000 or silicone A-2186 clinically due to similar susceptibility to microbial adherence. The presence of fillers in m-PMMA may not be adequate to promote the release of antimicrobial agents, however, m-PMMA showed less microbial adherence in comparison to other tested materials. The findings also demonstrate that surface roughness of the materials play an important role in microbial adherence.