Cml. Bollen et al., 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), 1997, pp. 258-269
Objectives. The roughness of intraoral hard surfaces can influence bac
terial plague retention. The present review evaluates the initial surf
ace roughness of several intraoral hard materials, as well as changes
in this surface roughness as a consequence of different treatment moda
lities. Methods. Articles found through Medline searches were included
in this review if they met the following criteria: 1) stated threshol
d surface roughness values and reputed change in surface roughness due
to different manipulation techniques; or 2) included standardized sur
face conditions that could be compared to the treated surface. Results
. Recently, some in vivo studies suggested a threshold surface roughne
ss for bacterial retention (R-a = 0.2 mu m) below which no further red
uction in bacterial accumulation could be expected. An increase in sur
face roughness above this threshold roughness. however, resulted in a
simultaneous increase in plaque accumulation, thereby increasing the r
isk for both caries and periodontal inflammation. The initial surface
roughness of different dental materials (e.g., teeth, abutments, gold,
amalgam, acrylic resin, resin composite, glass ionomer or compomer an
d ceramics) and the effect of different treatment modalities (e.g., po
lishing, scaling, brushing, condensing, glazing or finishing) on this
initial surface roughness were analyzed and compared to the threshold
surface roughness of 0.2 mu m. The microbiological effects of these tr
eatment modalities, if reported, are also discussed and compared to re
cent in vivo data. Significance. Based on this review, the range in su
rface roughness of different intraoral hard surfaces was found to be w
ide, and the impact of dental treatments on the surface roughness is m
aterial-dependent, Some clinical techniques result in a very smooth su
rface (compressing of composites against matrices), whereas others mad
e the surface rather rough (application of hand instruments on gold).
These findings indicated that every dental material needs its own trea
tment modality in order to obtain and maintain a surface as smooth as
possible.