Bacterial colonization of resin composite cements: influence of material composition and surface roughness

Glauser, Stephanie; Astasov‐Frauenhoffer, Monika; Müller, Jakob; Fischer, Jens; Waltimo, Tuomas; Rohr, Nadja

doi:10.1111/eos.12355

Cited by 42 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The surface texture of composites has influence on plaque accumulation, discoloration and wear [23]. Decreased bacterial adhesion was observed at surface roughness of 0.15 μm [24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of air-polishing on surface roughness of composite dental restorative material – comparison of three different air-polishing powders

Janiszewska‐Olszowska

Droździk

Tandecka

et al. 2020

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Increased composite roughness enhances bacterial adhesion and discoloration, thus increasing the risk of gingival inflammation and secondary caries. Concerns about detrimental effects of sodium bicarbonate on surface roughness influenced the development of less abrasive powders: a glycine-based powder and an erythritolbased powder, additionally -sodium bicarbonate-based powder of reduced grain size. However, there is limited evidence on effects of these materials on the surface of dental fillings. The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of three air-polishing powders (of a reduced abrasiveness) on surface roughness of microhybrid restorative composite material. Material and methods: Microhybrid light-cure resin composite samples were placed on 64 plaster cubes and light-cured through polyester strips. Surface roughness was measured using laser confocal microscope (magnification 2160x). The specimens were randomly divided into three groups (n = 20, 20 and 24) and airpolished with: sodium bicarbonate (40 μm), glycine (25 μm) and erythritol (14 μm), respectively. Then surface roughness was remeasured, keeping the same field of observation. Specialized 3D analysis software was used for data processing. Parameters according to ISO 25178: Sa, Sq, Sku, Sp, Sv, Sz, Ssk were used to describe surface roughness. Results: Sa, Sq, Sp, Sv, Sz increased significantly following air polishing. Ssk was significantly higher, whereas Sku was significantly lower in sodium bicarbonate and erythritol groups than before air polishing. Comparison between the three powders revealed that Sa was significantly higher in sodium bicarbonate group than in glycine group. Sku was significantly higher in glycine and erythritol groups than in sodium bicarbonate group. Conclusions: Sodium bicarbonate has a stronger detrimental effect on composite surface than glycine or erythritol. No advantage of erythritol comparing to glycine could be found.

show abstract

“…The surface texture of composites has influence on plaque accumulation, discoloration and wear [23]. Decreased bacterial adhesion was observed at surface roughness of 0.15 μm [24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of air-polishing on surface roughness of composite dental restorative material – comparison of three different air-polishing powders

Janiszewska‐Olszowska

Droździk

Tandecka

et al. 2020

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…26 For this type of material, the higher the roughness, the more challenging it is to remove the biofilm. 27 In this in vitro investigation, we decided to increase the challenging scenario for PMMA material by mimicking a clinical scene where the self-curing acrylic resin is not polished. Repair and relining of removable orthodontic appliances might be necessary along the years of orthodontic treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of surface roughness changes on orthodontic acrylic resin by all-in-one spray disinfectant solutions

Hsu

Balhaddad

García

et al. 2020

J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. The disinfection of orthodontic acrylic resins might change the physical and mechanicalproperties of these materials. We aimed to investigate the impact of four different commercially availabledisinfectants on the surface roughness of acrylic resins used for orthodontic appliances. Methods. Four disinfectant solutions (BirexSE, Opti-Cide3, COEfect MinuteSpray, and CaviCideSpray) were used to disinfect orthodontic acrylic resins using the spraying method. The resins weresubjected to repeated disinfection protocols. Distilled water, also applied via spraying method, was usedas a control. Surface roughness was scrutinized to examine the extent of surface topography changes bystylus profilometry. Data normality was evaluated via the Shapiro–Wilk test, followed by the WilcoxonSigned-Rank test for non-parametric data or paired Student’s t-test for parametric data to compareintra-group differences in roughness before and after the use of the disinfectant solutions. Results. Some of the disinfectants (BirexSE and CaviCide) resulted in significant changes in surfaceroughness values before and after the disinfection compared to the controls (P<0.05). The groups thatwere in contact with distilled water, Opti-Cide, and Coeffect did not exhibit significant differences insurface roughness before and after the intervention (P>0.05). However, from a clinical perspective, theresulting variations in surface roughness (<%0.15) induced by these solutions might not reflect clinicallysignificant differences. Conclusion. The use of disinfectant solutions is unlikely to harm the surface of orthodontic acrylic resins.Oral care providers need to be attentive to the interpretation and implementation of clinically significantchanges in their evidence-based approach regarding potential material damages by disinfection sprays.

show abstract

“…Various studies have shown that using APF increases the surface roughness of some composite materials [25 -27]. NF has been suggested for patients who have composite resin restorations [28,29], as the critical surface roughness by bacterial accumulation and colonization on the surface of restorations is 0.2 µm [18].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Fluoride Gels on the Surface Roughness of Different Composite Resins

Arruda¹,

Toppino²,

Barbosa³

et al. 2020

TODENTJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The pH of fluoride gels influences the roughness of composite resins, which affects their clinical durability. Objective: To evaluate the effect of fluoride gels (1.23% acidified phosphate fluoride and neutral fluoride) on the morphology of different composite resins after finishing and polishing. Methods: We prepared sixty specimens with a diameter of 5 mm and a height of 2 mm. The specimens were then divided into six groups (n = 10), according to the type of composite resin (Z250 micro-hybrid (Z), Filtek Z350 XT nanoparticles (XT), and Tetric N-Ceram nano-hybrid (TC)) and fluoride gel treatment (1.23% acidified phosphate (APF) or neutral fluoride (NF)) to measure surface roughness (Ra). The material was light-cured using an LED-curing unit (Elipar Freelight Deep Cure-3M/ESPE) for 20 s with a light intensity of 1.200 mW/cm2. Ra measurements were performed before and after treatment with different fluoride gels using a rugosimeter (Mitutoyo SJ210). After Ra, we selected two samples from each group for evaluation using scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk, ANOVA, and Tukey tests, with a significance of 5%. Results: The average Ra before and after NF did not differ statistically. The average Ra values of the groups treated with APF showed statistically significant differences. The photomicrographs of the groups treated with NF were similar to those of the groups without fluoride treatment. The APF-treated groups showed significant morphological changes. Conclusion: NF did not promote changes in the morphology of the evaluated composite resins, in contrast to APF, which caused significant changes.

show abstract

Bacterial colonization of resin composite cements: influence of material composition and surface roughness

Cited by 42 publications

References 43 publications

Effect of air-polishing on surface roughness of composite dental restorative material – comparison of three different air-polishing powders

Effect of air-polishing on surface roughness of composite dental restorative material – comparison of three different air-polishing powders

Assessment of surface roughness changes on orthodontic acrylic resin by all-in-one spray disinfectant solutions

Effect of Fluoride Gels on the Surface Roughness of Different Composite Resins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About