Auteurs | Objectifs | Céramiques utilisées | Groupe de contrôle | Tests utilisés | Types de bactéries | Résultats et conclusions |
Bremer et coll | To investigate oral biofilm formation on different dental ceramics in vivo. | -veneering glass ceramic -lithium disilicate, -Zirconia (Y-TZP), -Zirconia Y-TZP (HIP) -Zirconia Y-TZP HIP with 25 % alumina. | Without control group | Bacterial adhesion | in vivo | -A.B: Significant differences in bacterial surface coating and biofilm thickness were found between the different ceramic materials. The lowest surface coating and biofilm thickness were determined on the HIP Y-TZP ceramic; the highest mean values were identified with the lithium disilicate glass-ceramic. Conclusion: biofilm formation on different types of dental ceramics differs significantly; in particular, zirconia shows low plaque accumulation. |
Abbas I Hussein et coll | To compare bacterial adhesion between zirconia and lithium disilicate. | -Zirconia -Lithium disilicate | Gold | Bacterial adhesion | in vivo | The median number of Streptococcus Sanguineous colonies on zirconia crowns was significantly lower than the other two medians (gold and lithium disilicate). |
Alexander- Simon Engel et coll | To compare biofilm adhesion and formation on different dental restorative materials with those on human enamel to detect differences in bacterial composition, growth rate, and morphology of the formed oral biofilms, all in vivo. | -Lithium disilicate -Zirconia -Hybrid ceramic | Enamel | -Surface roughness -Bacterial adhesion | in vivo | -A.B: The results indicate that within 72 hours, mature oral biofilms had formed on enamel, IPS e-max and Vita Enamic, whereas on Lava Plus zirconia, a thin, immature biofilm had formed. Conclusion: It can be concluded that material roughness affects biofilm formation on dental surfaces and restoratives, but other factors, such as surface charge, surface energy and material composition, may also have an influence. |