Dental Materials
Volume 26, Issue 4 , Pages 306-319 , April 2010

Surface deterioration of dental materials after simulated toothbrushing in relation to brushing time and load

  • S.D. Heintze

      Affiliations

    • R&D, In Vitro Research, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Bendererstrasse 2, FL-9494 Schaan, Liechtenstein
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +423 235 3570; fax: +423 233 1279.
    • ,
  • M. Forjanic

      Affiliations

    • R&D, In Vitro Research, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Bendererstrasse 2, FL-9494 Schaan, Liechtenstein
    • ,
  • K. Ohmiti

      Affiliations

    • Statistical Unit, Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
    • ,
  • V. Rousson

      Affiliations

    • Statistical Unit, Institute for Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Received 29 September 2008 ,Accepted 24 November 2009.

References 

  1. Jones CS, Billington RW, Pearson GJ. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J. 2004;196:42–45
  2. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater. 1997;13:258–269
  3. Reis AF, Giannini M, Lovadino JR, Ambrosano GM. Effects of various finishing systems on the surface roughness and staining susceptibility of packable composite resins. Dent Mater. 2003;19:12–18
  4. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D. The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: short-term observations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11:169–178
  5. Göhring TN, Roos M. Inlay-fixed partial dentures adhesively retained and reinforced by glass fibers: clinical and scanning electron microscopy analysis after five years. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005;113:60–69
  6. Freilich MA, Meiers JC, Duncan JP, Eckrote KA, Goldberg AJ. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced fixed bridges. J Am Dent Assoc. 2002;133:1524–1534
  7. CRA . Posterior full crowns 2001. Part 2. Resin crowns, 4 years clinical status. CRA Newslett. 2001;25:1–3
  8. Lange RT, Pfeiffer P. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2009;34:263–272
  9. Manhart J, Chen HY, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R. Three-year clinical evaluation of composite and ceramic inlays. Am J Dent. 2001;14:95–99
  10. Neme AL, Frazier KB, Roeder LB, Debner TL. Effect of prophylactic polishing protocols on the surface roughness of esthetic restorative materials. Oper Dent. 2002;27:50–58
  11. dos Santos PH, Consani S, Correr Sobrinho L, Coelho Sinhoreti MA. Effect of surface penetrating sealant on roughness of posterior composite resins. Am J Dent. 2003;16:197–201
  12. Tanoue N, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Wear and surface roughness of current prosthetic composites after toothbrush/dentifrice abrasion. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84:93–97
  13. Cho LR, Yi YJ, Heo SJ. Effect of tooth brushing and thermal cycling on a surface change of ceromers finished with different methods. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29:816–822
  14. McCabe JF, Molyvda S, Rolland SL, Rusby S, Carrick TE. Two- and three-body wear of dental restorative materials. Int Dent J. 2002;52:406–416
  15. Turssi CP, De Moraes Purquerio B, Serra MC. Wear of dental resin composites: insights into underlying processes and assessment methods—a review. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2003;65:280–285
  16. Wang L, Garcia FC, Amarante de Araujo P, Franco EB, Mondelli RF. Wear resistance of packable resin composites after simulated toothbrushing test. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004;16:303–314
  17. Heintze SD, Forjanic M. Roughness of different dental materials before and after simulated toothbrushing in vitro. Oper Dent. 2005;30:617–626
  18. Heintze SD, Forjanic M. Surface roughness and gloss of dental materials after toothbrushing simulation. J Dent Res. 2006;85(Spec Iss B):Abstract No 472 (www.dentalresearch.org)
  19. Van der Weijden GA, Timmerman MF, Danser MM, Van der Velden U. Relationship between the plaque removal efficacy of a manual toothbrush and brushing force. J Clin Periodontol. 1998;25:413–416
  20. Volpenhein DW, Walsh ME, Dellerman PA, Burkett TA. A new method for in vitro evaluation of the interproximal penetration of manual toothbrushes. J Clin Dent. 1994;5:27–33
  21. ISO. Dental materials—guidance on testing of wear resistance. Part 1. Wear by tooth brushing. Technical Specification 1999; No. 14569-1.
  22. Teixeira EC, Thompson JL, Piascik JR, Thompson JY. In vitro toothbrush-dentifrice abrasion of two restorative composites. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2005;17:172–180
  23. Heintze SD, Forjanic M, Rousson V. Surface roughness and gloss of dental materials as a function of force and polishing time in vitro. Dent Mater. 2006;22:146–165
  24. Roulet J-F. Degradation of dental polymers. Basel: Karger; 1987;
  25. Kanter J, Koski RE, Martin D. The relationship of weight loss to surface roughness of composite resins from simulated toothbrushing. J Prosthet Dent. 1982;47:505–513
  26. Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vuylsteke-Wauters M, Vanherle G. The surface roughness of enamel-to-enamel contact areas compared with the intrinsic roughness of dental resin composites. J Dent Res. 1991;70:1299–1305
  27. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3:45–64
  28. Krämer N, Frankenberger R. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays after six years: wear of luting composites. Oper Dent. 2000;25:466–472
  29. Meijering AC, Roeter s FJ, Mulder J, Creugers NH. Patients’ satisfaction with different types of veneer restorations. J Dent. 1997;25:493–497
  30. Meijering AC, Creugers NH, Roeters FJ, Mulder J. Survival of three types of veneer restorations in a clinical trial: a 2.5-year interim evaluation. J Dent. 1998;26:563–568
  31. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Porcelain veneers: a review of the literature. J Dent. 2000;28:163–177
  32. Thordrup M, Isidor F, Hörsted-Bindslev P. A prospective clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays: ten-year results. Quintessence Int. 2006;37:139–144
  33. Wilson NH, Burke FJ, Mjör IA. Reasons for placement and replacement of restorations of direct restorative materials by a selected group of practitioners in the United Kingdom. Quintessence Int. 1997;28:245–248
  34. Van Dijken JW, Sjöström S, Wing K. The effect of different types of composite resin filling materials on marginal gingiva. J Clin Periodontol. 1987;14:185–189
  35. Quirynen M, Bollen CM. The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol. 1995;22:1–14
  36. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent. 2004;29:481–508
  37. Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2003;7:63–70
  38. Van Dijken JW, Sjöström S. Development of gingivitis around aged restorations of resin-modified glass ionomer cement, polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) and resin composite. Clin Oral Invest. 1998;2:180–183
  39. Krämer N, Reinelt C, Richter G, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R. Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in Class II cavities: clinical results and margin analysis after four years. Dent Mater. 2009;25:750–759
  40. Ernst CP, Brandenbusch M, Meyer G, Canbek K, Gottschalk F, Willershausen B. Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs. a fine-particle hybrid resin composite. Clin Oral Invest. 2006;10:119–125
  41. Geitel B, Kwiatkowski R, Zimmer S, Barthel CR, Roulet JF, Jahn KR. Clinically controlled study on the quality of class III, IV and V composite restorations after two years. J Adhes Dent. 2004;6:247–253
  42. Reusens B, D’Hoore W, Vreven J. In vivo comparison of a microfilled and a hybrid minifilled composite resin in Class III restorations: 2-year follow-up. Clin Oral Invest. 1999;3:62–69
  43. Van Dijken JW. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement and self-cured resin composite luted ceramic inlays. A 5-year clinical evaluation. Dent Mater. 2003;19:670–674
  44. CRA . Restorative resins: current generation Class 2 resin status report #3-2-year clinical performance. CRA Newslett. 1996;20:1–3
  45. Knibbs PJ, Smart ER. The clinical performance of a posterior composite resin restorative material, Heliomolar RO: 3-year report. J Oral Rehabil. 1992;19:231–237
  46. Portugal J, Bernardo MF, Pereira C, Tavares AV, Leitão J. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced composite bridges: two-year report. J Dent Res. 2005;85(Spec Iss B):Abstract No 582 (Continental European and Scandinavian Divisions) (www.dentalresearch.org)

PII: S0109-5641(09)00498-9

doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.152

Dental Materials
Volume 26, Issue 4 , Pages 306-319 , April 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution