Premium
The influence of surface free energy and surface roughness on early plaque formation
Author(s) -
Quirynen M.,
Marechal M.,
Busscher H. J.,
Weerkamp A. H.,
Darius P. L.,
Steenberghe D.
Publication year - 1990
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1990.tb01077.x
Subject(s) - smooth surface , surface roughness , significant difference , dental plaque , surface finish , materials science , surface energy , chemistry , dentistry , composite material , medicine
Previous in vivo studies suggested that a high substratum surface free energy (s.f.e.) and an increased surface roughness facilitate the supragingival plaque accumulation. It is the aim of this clinical trial to explore the “relative” effect of a combination of these surface characteristics on plaque growth. 2 strips, one made of fluorethylenepropylene (FEP) and the other made of cellulose acetate (CA) (polymers with surface free energies of 20 and 58 erg/cm 2 , respectively) were stuck to the labial surface of the central incisors of 16 volunteers. Half the surface of each strip was smooth (Ra ± 0.1 μm) and the other half was rough (Ra ± 2.2 μm). The undisturbed plaque formation on these strips was followed over a period of 6 days. The plaque extension at day 3 and 6 was scored planimetrically from color slides. Finally, of 6 subjects samples were taken from the strips as well as from a neighbouring smooth tooth surface (s.f.e. 88 erg/cm 2 ; Ra ± 0.14 μm). These samples were analysed with a light microscope to score the proportion of coccoid cells, and small, medium, and large rods or fusiform bacteria. At day 3, a significant difference in plaque accumulation was only obtained when a rough surface was compared with a smooth surface. However, at day 6, significantly less plaque was recorded on FEP smooth (19.4%) when compared with CA smooth (39.5%). Between FEP rough (96.8%) and CA rough (98.2%), no significant difference appeared. The latter were of course significantly higher than the scores of the smooth surfaces. Small differences in bacterial composition appeared: the highest % of coccoid cells was observed on FEP smooth (86.2%) and the lowest % on FEP rough (78.5%) and CA rough (82.8%). The results of this study suggested that the influence of the surface roughness on plaque accumulation and plaque composition is more prominent than the influence of the surface free energy.