The influence of surface roughness and surface‐free energy on supra‐ and subgingival plaque formation in man

Abstract

In the oral cavity, an open growth system, bacterial adhesion to the non‐shedding surfaces is for most bacteria the only way to survive. This adhesion occurs in 4 phases: the transport of the bacterium to the surface, the initial adhesion with a reversible and irreversible stage, the attachment by specific interactions, and finally the colonization in order to form a biofilm. Different hard surfaces are available in the oral cavity (teeth, filling materials, dental implants, or prostheses), all with different surface characteristics. In a healthy situation, a dynamic equilibrium exists on these surfaces between the forces of retention and those of removal. However, an increased bacterial accumulation often results in a shift toward disease. 2 mechanisms favour the retention of dental plaque: adhesion and stagnation. The aim of this review is to examine the influence of the surface roughness and the surface free energy in the adhesion process. Both in vitro and in vivo studies underline the importance of both variables in supragingival plaque formation. Rough surfaces will promote plaque formation and maturation, and high‐energy surfaces are known to collect more plaque, to bind the plaque more strongly and to select specific bacteria. Although both variables interact with each other, the influence of surface roughness overrules that of the surface free energy. For the subgingival environment, with more facilities for microorganisms to survive, the importance of surface characteristics dramatically decreases. However, the influence of surface roughness and surface‐free energy on supragingival plaque justifies the demand for smooth surfaces with a low surface‐free energy in order to minimise plaque formation, thereby reducing the occurrence of caries and periodontitis.

Does Vitamin E-blended UHMWPE Prevent Biofilm Formation?

“…The PEEK material had the smoothest surface after being exposed to the same machining process as the other four materials yet had the most biofilm formation. This was particularly interesting given that multiple studies have indicated that an increase in surface roughness may promote or encourage biofilm formation [6,14,17]. Future experiments will need to be performed to determine whether rougher surfaces of PEEK enhance or promote biofilm formation compared to smoother surfaces of PEEK.…”

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

“…Shown are means and standard deviations of Ra (n=10 for tooth slides, n=5 for dental materials), and for CA mean and quality of fit (=linear equation to experimental dataset) a material like surface free energy, hydrophobicity, and surface roughness, as well as material composition, affect initial bacterial adhesion [13][14][15] .…”

“…Quirynen and Bollen 15) suggested that surface roughness and surface free energy were the main material-linked factors influencing bacterial adhesion. They further showed that the influence of surface roughness was stronger than that of surface free energy and surface hydrophobicity.…”

Effect of various treatment and glazing (coating) techniques on the roughness and wettability of ceramic dental restorative surfaces

“…Their ability to yield relatively smooth surfaces, which minimizes plaque deposition and tissue inflammation, is another important reason for their preference in dental applications. Therefore, the degree of surface roughness of dental ceramics and its effect on biocompatibility have been widely studied [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Surface roughness also determines the degree of abrasion caused by one tooth on another.…”