Key Points
-
Patients are very aware of rough restorations.
-
Little research has been carried out on the degree to which patients can detect differences in roughness.
-
This study shows that previous figures for surface roughness values were much too high.
Abstract
Objective To determine a threshold of detection value for surface roughness of restorations by patients using their tongue.
Method Samples of composite resin were finished with differing grades of abrasive. The surface roughness (Ra) was measured and representative scanning electro-micrographs taken. These were compared with labial enamel. Twenty-five volunteers were asked to rank them in order of perceived roughness using the tip of their tongue.
Results These showed that the 60% of volunteers were able to rank the specimens correctly, and were able to distinguish differences in roughness values from between 0.25 and 0.50 μm. This range encompasses that of natural enamel.
Conclusions The subjects were able to distinguish lower roughness values than have previously been reported. It is concluded that when finishing restorations the surface should have a maximum roughness 0.50 μm if it is not to be detected by the patient.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Van Noort R . Controversial aspects of composite resin restorative materials. Br Dent J 1983; 155: 360–385.
Wright SM . Oral awareness and ability to detect dental plaque. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24: 461–467.
Smales RJ, Creaven PJ . Evaluation of clinical methods for assessing the surface roughness of restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42: 45–52.
Bosma JF . Third symposium on oral sensation and perception. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1992, pp. 46.
Ten Cate AR . Oral Histology. Development, structure and function. St Louis: Mosby, 1994.
Stout KJ . Surface Roughness — measurement, interpretation and significance of data. Mat Eng 1981; 2: 260–265.
Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G . Composite resins in the 21st century. Quintessence Int, 1993; 24: 641–658.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank 3M Espe and Shofu dental for their kind help in supplying materials. They would also like to thank Mr. G. Palmer of the Biomaterials department of the Eastman Dental Institution for his help in producing the photomicrographs.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Refereed paper
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, C., Billington, R. & Pearson, G. The in vivo perception of roughness of restorations. Br Dent J 196, 42–45 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4810881
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4810881
This article is cited by
-
Effect of immersion and thermocycling in different beverages on the surface roughness of single- and multi-shade resin composites
BMC Oral Health (2023)
-
In Vitro evaluation of the effects of whitening toothpastes on the color and surface roughness of different composite resin materials
BMC Oral Health (2023)
-
The influence of hydrothermal fatigue on the clinically relevant functional properties of conventional glass-ionomer cements
Scientific Reports (2023)
-
Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of enamel surfaces using different air-polishing powders in the orthodontic setting: an in vitro study
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie (2023)
-
The Effect of Sandblasting and Bead Blasting on the Surface Finish of Dry Electrolyte Polishing of Laser Powder Bed Fusion Parts
Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance (2023)
