ArticleJournal of dental sciences2022
Effect of brushing on surface roughness, fluoride release, and biofilm formation with different tooth-colored materials.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inflammation-Driven Epithelial Plasticity in Oral Mucosa Adjacent to Long-Term Restorative Materials: A Retrospective Histopathological and Immunohistochemical Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Bioactivity and potential applications of surface pre-reacted glass-ionomer (S-PRG) filler-containing dental materials for geriatric oral health: A scoping review.The Japanese dental science review · 2025Review
- Brushing With Charcoal Toothpastes on the Surface Properties of a Giomer: A Comparative In-Vitro Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Factors Influencing Fluoride Release from Dental Nanocomposite Materials: A Systematic Review.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Ion release, cytocompatibility and microbial inhibition of a novel varnish containing fluoride-doped bioactive glass ceramics: an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Technological dental sealants: in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potential.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Changes in Gloss Alteration, Surface Roughness, and Color of Direct Dental Restorative Materials after Professional Dental Prophylaxis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Effects of Bio-Aging on Mechanical Properties and Microbial Behavior of Different Resin Composites.Biomolecules · 2023Article
- Antibacterial Activity of a Bioactive Tooth-Coating Material Containing Surface Pre-Reacted Glass in a Complex Multispecies Subgingival Biofilm.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
- Effects of bioflavonoid-containing mouth rinses on optical properties of tooth-coloured dental restorative materials.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background/purposeTooth brushing, material mechanical ageing procedure, is the most effective way in removing biofilm. The purpose of this study was to investigate the surface roughness, fluoride-release, and S. mutans biofilm formation on various tooth-colored restorative materials before and after brushing. MATERIALS AND
methodsDiscs of materials, a nanocomposite (Filtek Z350XT; CO), a giomer (Beautifil II; GIOMER), a resin-modified glass-ionomer material (Fuji II LC; RMGI), and a conventional glass-ionomer material (Fuji IX GP Extra; GI), were prepared, polished with abrasive discs (SofLex), and divided into brushed and not brushed groups. The surface roughness of specimens was observed using a contact profilometer, fluoride-release was measured using a fluoride-specific ion electrode, and S. mutans biofilm formation, biovolume and live/dead cells, was observed under a confocal laser scanning microscope.
resultsHigher roughness was observed on GI and RMGI than on CO and GIOMER. Brushing had no effect on the roughness. The fluoride-release of GI and RMGI was higher than that of GIOMER. The fluoride-release decreased after brushing in all materials. The biovolume of S. mutans was not significantly different between GIOMER, RMGI and GI, while CO showed the highest. Brushing resulted in a higher biovolume for all materials, except CO, which showed no change. After brushing, all the tested materials demonstrated identical biovolumes. There were no significant differences in live/dead cells among all groups.
conclusionBrushing demonstrated a negative effect on the fluoride-release and biovolume of S. mutans biofilms for all tested materials except nanocomposites.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.