Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development

Teughels, Wim; Assche, Nele Van; Sliepen, I.; Quirynen, Marc

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01353.x

Cited by 1,118 publications

(1,101 citation statements)

References 125 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

949

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some authors have discussed the negative influence of supragingival roughness on biofilm formation and mechanical plaque control by the patient (2). A literature review (20) concluded that the defects on root surface are protected against the removal forces, increase the difficult in performing oral hygiene. This favors biofilm adherence, retention and maturation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Root surface defect produced by hand instruments and ultrasonic scaler with different power settings: an in vitro study

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the root surface defect produced by hand curettes and ultrasonic tips with different power settings. Forty root surfaces were divided into 4 groups according the treatment: Gracey curettes, ultrasonic scaler at 10% power, ultrasonic scaler at 50% power and ultrasonic scaler at 100% power. Each specimen was instrumented with 15 strokes and the and divided in the middle to evaluate: (1) the defect depth produced by the instrumentation and (2) contact area of the instrument tips, which was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. ANOVA and Tukey's test were used for statistical analysis (a=0.05). The results (mean ± SD) of the contact area showed significantly greater defects (p<0.05) for the hand instrumented groups (2092.9 ± 482) compared to the ultrasonic groups (606.8 ± 283.0; 858.6 ± 422.5; 1212.0 ± 366.7, respectively), independently of the power setting. The values for the defect depth on root surface showed no statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between hand instrumentation (66.1 ± 34.0) and ultrasonic scaling at 10%, 50% or 100% power settings (52.4 ± 22.1; 72.0 ± 29.9; 77.7 ± 37.7, respectively). The findings of this study demonstrate that ultrasonic instrumentation produced a similar defect depth to that of hand instrumentation, with a smaller tip contact area, independently of the power setting used for scaling.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Root surface defect produced by hand instruments and ultrasonic scaler with different power settings: an in vitro study

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies reported that initial adhesion was promoted if both bacteria and the surfaces involved had similar hydrophobic properties 8,17,18) . In this study, the S. sanguinis cells suspended in saliva showed a hydrophilic nature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adhesion of Streptococcus sanguinis to Dental Implant and Restorative Materials in vitro

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bacterial adhesion to tooth surfaces or dental materials starts immediately upon exposure to the oral environment. The aim of this study, therefore, was to compare the adhesion of Streptococcus sanguinis to saliva-coated human enamel and dental materials -during a one-hour period -using an in vitro flow chamber system which mimicked the oral cavity. After fluorescent staining, the number of adhered cells and their vitality were recorded. The dental materials used were: titanium (Rematitan M), gold (Neocast 3), ceramic (Vita Omega 900), and composite (Tetric Ceram).The number of adherent bacterial cells was higher on titanium, gold, and ceramic surfaces and lower on composite as compared to enamel. As for the percentage of adherent vital cells, it was higher on enamel than on the restorative materials tested. These results suggested that variations in the number and vitality of the adherent pioneer oral bacteria, S. sanguinis, in the in vitro system depended on the surface characteristics of the substratum and the acquired salivary pellicle.The in vitro adhesion model used herein provided a simple and reproducible approach to investigate the impact of surface-modified dental materials on bacterial adhesion and vitality.

show abstract

“…The critical roughness threshold for plaque formation has been reported to be 0.2 µm (Teughels et al, 2006). A smooth surface adds to the patient's comfort, as already a surface roughness in the order of 0.3 mm can be detected by the tip of the patient's tongue (Jones et al, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: Two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness

Mörmann

Stawarczyk

Ender

et al. 2013

Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

289

243

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development

Abstract: Extrapolation of data from studies on different restorative materials seems to indicate that transmucosal implant surfaces with a higher surface roughness/surface free energy facilitate biofilm formation.

Cited by 1,118 publications

References 125 publications

Root surface defect produced by hand instruments and ultrasonic scaler with different power settings: an in vitro study

Root surface defect produced by hand instruments and ultrasonic scaler with different power settings: an in vitro study

Adhesion of Streptococcus sanguinis to Dental Implant and Restorative Materials in vitro

Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: Two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About