ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of various polishing systems on the surface roughness and Streptococcus mutans adhesion of CAD/CAM ceramic materials.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundCAD/CAM ceramics provide superior predictability; however, minor adjustments are often required prior to cementation to achieve adequate interdental and occlusal contacts and to improve overall contours. These adjustments increase the surface roughness of ceramic restorations, which can promote bacterial adhesion. Therefore, this study evaluated the effects of three polishing systems (Komet, OptraGloss, EVE) on surface roughness and Streptococcus mutans adhesion to lithium disilicate and translucent zirconia ceramics.
methodsFifty specimens of each material (lithium disilicate and translucent zirconia) were divided into five groups (n = 10): glazed (control), ground, and ground followed by polishing with one of the three systems. The surface roughness (R
resultsCompared with the other groups, the glazed groups presented significantly lower surface roughness (Ra: 0.03 μm for lithium disilicate and 0.02 μm for zirconia) and CLSM-derived biofilm area coverage (median: 0.14% for lithium disilicate and 0.15% for zirconia) (P < 0.001). Among the polished groups, the three polishing systems demonstrated significant differences in surface roughness values (Ra: 0.44-0.86 μm for lithium disilicate and 0.39-0.68 μm for zirconia; P < 0.001); however, no significant differences in S. mutans adhesion were observed (P = 1.000 for lithium disilicate; P ≥ 0.903 for zirconia).
conclusionsAlthough all three polishing systems effectively reduced surface roughness after grinding, none achieved the smoothness or the level of biofilm area coverage reduction of the initial glazed surfaces.
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.