| Author | Objectives | Ceramics | Control group | Tests | Type of bacteria | Results and conclusions |
| Hahnel et al. | To investigate the surface properties of dental ceramic materials belonging to different ceramic classes, and to correlate the findings to the initial adherence of three oral streptococcal strains. | Glass ceramic Lithium disilicate glass ceramic Glass-infiltrated alumina?zirconia ceramic Partially stabilized zirconia ceramic Hipped zirconia ceramic | Glass plates | -Surface roughness -Surface free energy -Bacterial adhesion | -Streptococcus gordonii -Streptococcus oralis -Streptococcus sanguinis | -Ra: The lithium disilicate glass ceramic showed the highest values for surface roughness -B.A: the control material showed higher values for streptococcal adhesion than all ceramic materials. After protein coating, only slight and random differences in streptococcal adhesion were found between the various ceramic materials Conclusion: Dental ceramic materials show differences in terms of Ra, and initial streptococcal adhesion; however, correlations between surface properties and streptococcal adhesion were poor |
| Diane T. Vo, DDS et al. | to investigate how biofilm accumulation is affected by surface quality of differently prepared lithium disilicate all-ceramic materials. A correlation between surface roughness and bacterial adherence was also evaluated. | IPS e.max Press IPS e.max CAD IPS e.max ZirPress/Ceram IPS e.max Press with IPS e.max Ceram Glaze Spray | Without control group | -Surface roughness -Bacterial adhesion | Streptococcus mutans | -Ra: Ceram Glaze > ZirPress > Press = CAD -B.A: Ceram Glaze > ZirPress > Press = CAD Conclusion: The surface roughness of differently prepared lithium disilicate ceramic restorations is closely related to the adherence of S mutans |
| Ghanta, Haritha et al. | To compare the adhesion of Streptococcus gordonii to enamel and other dental materials with and without surface wear. | Lithium disilicate (IPS e.max), Zirconia (Z, Y-TZP) | Enamel | Bacterial adhesion | Streptococcus gordonii | -A.B: The highest bacterial attachment was found at worn enamel surfaces. Among the materials, Zirconia showed the lowest bacterial attachment regardless of wear Conclusion: Bacterial adherence was material dependent and worn surfaces increased bacterial adherence |
| L Viitaniemi et al. | Monolithic zirconia and glass ceramics are increasingly used in implant crowns. Limited data is available on bacterial adhesion and early biofilm formation on these materials. | Lithium disilicate glass-ceramics Fully stabilized zirconia Partially stabilized zirconia | Without control group | Bacterial adhesion | -S. mutans | Conclusion: LDS has lower S. mutans adhesion than other materials examined in this study, but the difference was not reflected in early biofilm formation |
| AMO Dal Piva et al. | To evaluate the influence of two finishing techniques (polishing or glazing) on the surface properties of two monolithic ceramics, as well as on bacterial adhesion. | -Zirconia -Silicate de lithium renforcé à la zircone (Vita suprinity) | Without control group | -Surface roughness -Surface free energy -Bacterial adhesion | -Streptococcus mutans -Streptococcus sanguinis -Candida albicans | -Ra: glazed zirconia has the highest S.R. Conclusion: glazed surfaces present higher surface roughness than polished surfaces. Glazed surfaces present higher surface roughness and tend to accumulate more bacteria |
| Ezzatollah Jalalian et al. | To compare adhesion of streptococcus mutans to zirconia, IPS Empress II, noble alloy, and base-metal. | -Zirconia -Lithium disilicate | Enamel | -Surface roughness -Bacterial adhesion | -S. mutans | -Ra: there was no significant difference among study groups regarding their surface roughness -B.A: The lowest adhesion value was obtained in zirconia group Conclusion: Zirconia showed the lowest bacterial adhesion in comparison to other restorative materials. Therefore, the findings of the present study highlight the fact that restorative ceramics, including zirconia is a better choice in patients with poor oral hygiene and those susceptible to periodontal disease |
| Maciej Dobrzynski et al. | to compare adhesion as well as development of the biofilm by chosen oral microorganisms on the ceramics materials in regard to their roughness. | -Lithium disilicate -Hybrid ceramic -Leucite glass ceramics Leucite-reinforced glass | Without control group | -Contact angle -Bacterial adhesion | -C. albicans, -S. mutans, -L. rhamnosus, | -B.A: *S. mutans: la céramique hybride: The highest adhesion in S. mutans was noted in polished Vita Enamic and polished IPS Empress groups. Both S. mutans and L. rhamnosus did not adhere to the sintered IPS e.max. Conclusion: Streptococcus mutans demonstrated by far the best adhesion to the tested materials in comparison with Candida albicans and Lacto-bacillus rhamnosus. The sintered materials such as IPS e.max polished showed the best “anti-adhesive properties” in relation to Streptococcus mutans and bacilli |
| Stephanie Francoi poole et al. | to evaluate the influence of distinct surface treatments on ceramic surface roughness and biofilm formation of oral bacteria (Prevotella intermedia). | -leucite-based glass ceramic, -lithium disilicate-based glass ceramic, -glass ceramic based on zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate, -monolithic zirconia. | Polished ceramics with silicon carbide paper | -Surface roughness -Bacterial adhesion | Prevotella intermedia | -B.A: Bacterial growth and adhesion were similar in the lithium disilicate, zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate and leucite glass-ceramic groups. The zirconia group showed higher susceptibility to bacterial adhesion for all types of surface treatment Conclusion: Based on our results, it may be suggested that vitreous materials (leucite-based glass ceramic, lithium disilicate-based glass ceramic, glass ceramic based on zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate) had a smoother surface when compared with that of zirconia. Furthermore, grinding with diamond burs led to greater roughness on the ceramic surfaces, and the rugosity of the ceramic material surfaces seemed to favor susceptibility for adhesion of P. intermedia |
| Shlomo matalon et al. | to compare bacterial adhesion to zirconia versus lithium disilicate crowns after artificial aging. | -Zirconia -Lithium disilicate | Cr-Co base metal | -Surface roughness -Bacterial adhesion | -Streptococcus sanguinis | -R.S: Statistical analysis showed significant differences (p = 0.02) in surface roughness between the Cr-Co base metal, zirconia and lithium disilicate before and after aging. Lithium disilicate had the highest surface roughness values -A.B: After aging and bacterial adherence, the zirconia discs had the smoothest surface, with similar bacterial accumulation as lithium disilicate; suggesting that lithium disilicate may be less sensitive to bacterial adhesion than zirconia |
| Patricia Akemi Nishitani Shibasaki et al. | To evaluate the performance of three types of ceramic subjected to polishing, glazing or no surface treatment after aging. | -Zirconia -Lithium disilicate | Ceramics without any treatment | -Surface roughness -Contact angle -Bacterial adhesion | -Streptococcus mutans -Candida albicans | -Ra: polishing has a lower RS than glazing, and zirconia has a higher Ra than IPS e.max CAD. Surfaces without polishing showed a higher S.R. than the polished group, a higher contact angle and significant morphological changes, irrespective of the glass-ceramic -B.A: Regardless of material type, there was higher biofilm formation on unpolished surfaces compared with polished or glazed ceramics In general, zirconia and lithium disilicate showed the same bacterial adhesion results |
| Mohamed Mahmoud Abdalla et al. | To test the hypothesis that surface roughening and polishing of ceramics have no effect on their surface roughness and biofilm adhesion. | -Feldspathic ceramic -Lithium disilicate -zirconia reinforced lithium silicate Vita Suprinity | Ceramics as prepared | -Surface roughness -Bacterial adhesion | -Streptococcus mutans | -Ra: Irrespective to the ceramic type, the roughened samples showed significant higher mean surface roughness values compared to the as prepared and polished samples The as prepared ceramics groups had the lowest mean surface roughness values. Regarding the ceramic types, only the as prepared samples of feldspathic ceramic showed statistically significant higher mean surface roughness values than lithium disilciate and zirconia reinforced lithium silicate -B.A: Regardless the ceramic type, the roughened ceramic blocks recorded significantly higher mean percentages of live bacteria than the as prepared and polished blocks. zirconia reinforced lithium silicate Vita Suprinity showed significantly lower percentage of live bacteria than feldspathic ceraic and IPS e.max Conclusion: Roughened ceramic surfaces contributed to biofilm adhesion regardless of the ceramic type. Despite polishing, the surfaces still facilitated biofilm development. Thus, care should be taken while adjusting such ceramics in order to minimize the risk of bacterial adhesion and recurrent caries. The results of this study highlight that polished zirconia reinforced lithium disilicate surfaces had the lowest bacterial adhesion among the evaluated ceramics followed by lithium disilicate glass |