Surface roughness of different dental materials before and after simulated toothbrushing in vitro

Operative Dentistry

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2005, Pages 617-626

  Heintze, S D ^a,b   Forjanic, M ^a  

^a Ivoclar Vivadent   (Liechtenstein)

^b NONE   (Liechtenstein)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALUMINUM SILICATE; APATITE; COMPOGLASS; COMPOMER; D.SIGN CERAMIC; DENTAL ALLOY; ESTHET X; ESTHET-X; GLASS IONOMER; IPS EMPRESS CERAMIC; IPS-EMPRESS CERAMIC; RESIN; TPH SPECTRUM;

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENTAL SURGERY; DENTIN; ENAMEL; HUMAN; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SURFACE PROPERTY; TOOTH BRUSHING; TOOTH DISEASE; TOOTH PROSTHESIS;

ALUMINUM SILICATES; APATITES; COMPOMERS; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL AMALGAM; DENTAL ENAMEL; DENTAL PORCELAIN; DENTAL RESTORATION WEAR; DENTIN; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; HUMANS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SURFACE PROPERTIES; TOOTH ABRASION; TOOTHBRUSHING;

EID: 26444546802     PISSN: 03617734     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P & Quirynen M (1997) Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the literature Dental Materials 13(4) 258-269.
2. Brunsvold MA & Lane JJ (1990) The prevalence of overhanging dental restorations and their relationship to periodontal disease Journal of Clinical Periodontology 17(2) 67-72.
3. Chadwick B, Dummer P & Dunstan F (1999) A systematic review of the longevity of dental restorations York NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York.
4. Cho LR, Yi YJ & Heo SJ (2002) Effect of tooth brushing and thermal cycling on a surface change of ceromers finished with different methods Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 29(9) 816-822.
5. dos Santos PH, Consani S, Correr Sobrinho L & Coelho Sinhoreti MA (2003) Effect of surface penetrating sealant on roughness of posterior composite resins American Journal of Dentistry 16(3) 197-201.
6. Heintze SD & Twetman S (2002) Interdental mutans streptococci suppression in vivo: A comparison of different chlorhexidine regimens in relation to restorative material American Journal of Dentistry 15(2) 103-108.
7. Heintze SD, Zappini G & Rousson V (2005) Wear of ten dental restorative materials in five wear simulators - results of a round robin test Dental Materials 21(4) 304-317.
8. Hickel R & Manhart J (2001) Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 3(1) 45-64.
9. ISOTS (1999) Dental materials-Guidance on testing of wear-Part 1: Wear by tooth brushing Technical Specification No 14569-1.
10. Jones CS, Billington RW & Pearson GJ (2004) The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations British Dental Journal 196(1) 42-45.
11. Kanter J, Koski RE & Martin D (1982) The relationship of weight loss to surface roughness of composite resins from simulated toothbrushing Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 47(5) 505-513.
12. Krämer N, Lohbauer U & Frankenberger R (2000) Adhesive luting of indirect restorations American Journal of Dentistry 13(Spec No) 60D-76D.
13. Lang NP, Kiel RA & Anderhalden K (1983) Clinical and microbiological effects of subgingival restorations with overhanging or clinically perfect margins Journal of Clinical Periodontology 10(6) 563-578.
14. Marinho VC, Higgins JP, Sheiham A & Logan S (2003) Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents (Cochrane Review) The Cochrane Library 3 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Chichester Cochrane Database System Review 2003 (1) CD002278. Review.
15. McCabe JF, Molyvda S, Rolland SL, Rusby S & Carrick TE (2002) Two and three-body wear of dental restorative materials International Dental Journal 52(5 Supplement) 406-416.
16. Meijering AC, Roeters FJ, Mulder J & Creugers NH (1997) Patients' satisfaction with different types of veneer restorations Journal of Dentistry 25(6) 493-497.
17. Meijering AC, Creugers NH, Roeters FJ & Mulder J (1998) Survival of three types of veneer restorations in a clinical trial: A 2.5-year interim evaluation Journal of Dentistry 26(7) 563-568.
18. Mjör IA & Toffenetti F (2000) Secondary caries: A literature review with case reports Quintessence International 31(3) 165-179.
19. Mjör IA (1998) The location of clinically diagnosed secondary caries Quintessence International 29(5) 313-317.
20. Nadarajah V, Neiders ME & Cohen RE (1997) Local inflammatory effects of composite resins Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry 18(4) 367-374.
21. Neme AL, Frazier KB, Roeder LB & Debner TL (2002) Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials Operative Dentistry 27(1) 50-58.
22. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P & Vanherle G (2000) Porcelain veneers: A review of the literature Journal of Dentistry 28(3) 163-177.
23. Quirynen M & Bollen CM (1995) The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature Journal of Clinical Periodontology 22(1) 1-14.
24. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J & van Steenberghe D (1996) The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: Short-term observations International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants 11(2) 169-178.
25. Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR & Ambrosano GM (2003) Effects of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable composite resins Dental Materials 19(1) 12-18.
26. Roulet JF & Roulet-Mehrens TK (1982) The surface roughness of restorative materials and dental tissues after polishing with prophylaxis and polishing pastes Journal of Periodontology 53(4) 257-266.
27. Roulet JF (1987) Degradation of dental polymers Karger, Basel.
28. Schätzle M, Lang NP, Anerud A, Boysen H, Burgin W & Loe H (2001) The influence of margins of restorations of the periodontal tissues over 26 years Journal of Clinical Periodontology 28(1) 57-64.
29. Sidhu SK, Sherriff M & Watson TF (1997) In vivo changes in roughness of resin-modified glass ionomer materials Dental Materials 13(3) 208-213.
30. Tanoue N, Matsumura H & Atsuta M (2000) Wear and surface roughness of current prosthetic composites after toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 84(1) 93-97.
31. Van der Weijden GA, Timmerman MF, Danser MM & Van der Velden U (1998) Relationship between the plaque removal efficacy of a manual toothbrush and brushing force Journal of Clinical Periodontology 25(5) 413-416.
32. van Dijken JW, Sjöström S & Wing K (1987) The effect of different types of composite resin fillings on marginal gingiva Journal of Clinical Periodontology 14(4) 185-189.
33. van Dijken JW & Sjöström S (1998) Development of gingivitis around aged restorations of resin-modified glass ionomer cement, polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) and resin composite Clinical Oral Investigation 2(4) 180-183.
34. Volpenhein DW, Walsh ME, Dellerman PA & Burkett TA (1994) A new method for in vitro evaluation of the interproximal penetration of manual toothbrushes Journal of Clinical Dentistry 5(1) 27-33.
35. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke Wauters M & Vanherle G (1991) The surface roughness of enamel-to-enamel contact areas compared with the intrinsic roughness of dental resin composites Journal of Dental Research 70(9) 1299-1305.
36. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Celis JP & Vanherle G (1992) A classification of dental composites according to their morphological and mechanical characteristics Dental Materials 8(5) 310-319.
37. Wilson NH, Burke FJ & Mjör IA (1997) Reasons for placement and replacement of restorations of direct restorative materials by a selected group of practitioners in the United Kingdom Quintessence International 28(4) 245-248.