ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Analysis of surface roughness and surface free

energy characteristics of various orthodontic
materials
Hyo-Beom Ahn,a Sug-Joon Ahn,b Shin-Jae Lee,c Tae-Woo Kim,d and Dong-Seok Nahme
Seoul, Korea

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to analyze the differences in surface characteristics of various
orthodontic materials; this might provide valuable information on bacterial adhesion to orthodontic materials.
Methods: Surface roughness (SR) and surface free energy (SFE) characteristics of 5 orthodontic adhesives
(2 composites resins, 2 resin-modified glass ionomer cements, and 1 compomer), 5 bracket materials (2 stain-
less steel, 1 monocrystalline sapphire, 1 polycrystalline alumina, and 1 plastic) and bovine incisors were inves-
tigated by using confocal laser scanning microscopy and the sessile drop method. Results: There were
significant differences in SR and SFE characteristics among orthodontic materials. Bovine incisors showed
the roughest surface, and monocrystalline sapphire showed the smoothest surface. However, there were
only small variations in SR (less than 0.3 mm) among the materials, except for bovine incisors. In contrast to
SR, there were big differences in SFE characteristics among materials. Generally, bracket materials showed
lower SFE—specifically, dispersive and polar components on their surfaces—than orthodontic adhesives.
Resin-modified glass ionomer cements had the highest SFE, dispersive component, and polarity; these
conditions are more favorable for bacterial adhesion. Conclusions: This study suggests that SFE character-
istics can influence bacterial adhesion to orthodontic materials more than SR, and bracket materials might
have less favorable SFE characteristics for bacterial adhesion than orthodontic adhesives. (Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:668-74)

M
any orthodontic materials provide proper
conditions for the colonization of oral micro-
organisms in the oral cavity, because they
impede access to the tooth surfaces for cleaning and
provide additional adhesion sites for oral bacteria, lead-
ing to pathogenic plaque formation.1-4 The resultant
increase in plaque retention places patients at higher
risk for enamel demineralization adjacent to the ortho-
dontic materials. In particular, adhesion of mutans
a
Clinical instructor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul
National University, Seoul, Korea.
b
Assistant professor, Dental Research Institute and Department of Orthodon-
tics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
c
Associate professor, Dental Research Institute and Department of Orthodon-
tics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
d
Professor, Dental Research Institute and Department of Orthodontics, School
of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
e
Professor emeritus, Dental Research Institute and Department of Orthodontics,
School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
Supported by a grant of the Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project,
Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, Republic of Korea (A091074).
The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the
products or companies described in this article.
Reprint requests to: Sug-Joon Ahn, Dental Research Institute and Department of
Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, 28-22 Yunkeun-
Dong, Chongro-Ku, Seoul 110-768, Korea (ROK); e-mail, titoo@snu.ac.kr.
Submitted, August 2007; revised and accepted, November 2007.
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright Ó 2009 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.032
668
streptococci to orthodontic materials is considered to
play a key role in the pathogenesis of enamel deminer-
alization. Previous studies reported that the placement
of a fixed orthodontic appliance induces increased
volumes and numbers of mutans streptococci in dental
plaque, but the elevated levels return to normal levels
after removal of the appliance.5,6
Surface characteristics of biomaterials influence
bacterial adhesion in vitro.7-9 Surface roughness (SR)
and surface free energy (SFE) have significant impacts
on bacterial adhesion.8,9 A rough surface allows bacte-
rial colonization by increasing the adhesion areas and
preventing dislodgement of bacterial colonies. A mate-
rial with high SFE attracts more bacteria to its surface
than one with low SFE; this is governed by thermody-
namic rules.7-9 In addition, nonspecific physicoche-
mical interactions, consisting of van der Waals,
electrostatic, and acid-base interactions, play important
roles in initial bacterial adhesion, which can be defined
by the SFE components.7,10
Brackets and adhesives are the representative ma-
terials available in clinical orthodontics. Among them,
composites and glass ionomers are the 2 main classes
of orthodontic bonding adhesives, and metal, ceramic,
and plastic are widely used bracket materials.
Although their physical and mechanical properties
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Ahn et al 669
Volume 136, Number 5

Fig 1. Box plots for surface roughness (mm) of various orthodontic materials: 2 composite adhesives
(Enlight [EN] and Lightbond [LB]), 2 RMGIs (Fuji Ortho LC [FO] and Multi-cure [MC]), 1 compomer
(Transbond Plus [TP]), 2 stainless steel bracket materials (MB1 and MB2), 1 monocrystalline sapphire
bracket material (MCS), 1 polycrystalline alumina bracket material (PCA), and 1 plastic bracket ma-
terial (PB), and bovine incisor (BI).

Fig 2. Box plots for surface free energy (mJ/m2) of various orthodontic materials: 2 composite adhe-
sives (Enlight [EN] and Lightbond [LB]), 2 RMGIs (Fuji Ortho LC [FO] and Multi-cure [MC]), 1
compomer (Transbond Plus [TP]), 2 stainless steel bracket materials (MB1 and MB2), 1 monocrystal-
line sapphire bracket material (MCS), 1 polycrystalline alumina bracket material (PCA), and 1 plastic
bracket material (PB), and bovine incisor (BI).

have been extensively studied, their surface character-
istics associated with bacterial adhesion have not been
as well investigated. Differences in bacterial adhesion
to the various orthodontic materials can be expected
because of their different surface characteristics.
Knowledge of surface characteristics of orthodontic
materials can provide valuable information on the
bacterial-adhesion and plaque-retaining capacities
associated with enamel demineralization during or-
thodontic treatment. We compared SR and SFE
characteristics of 10 representative orthodontic mate-
rials with those of bovine enamel to determine which
material has a higher retaining capacity for oral
bacteria.
670 Ahn et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
November 2009

Table I. One-way ANOVA results for surface roughness (mm) in various orthodontic materials
Orthodontic adhesive (mean 6 SD)

EN LB TP FO MC

0.39 6 0.01C 0.44 6 0.01E 0.41 6 0.01D 0.41 6 0.02C,D 0.44 6 0.01E

The same superscripts indicate no statistically significant difference between the groups (P .0.05).
Increasing group mean values were expressed with ascending alphabetical order.
EN, Enlight; LB, Lightbond; FO, Fuji Ortho LC; TP, Transbond Plus; MC, Multi-cure; MB1, stainless steel bracket material (Tomy); MB2, stainless
steel bracket material (Biomaterials); PCA, polycrystalline alumina bracket material; MCS, monocrystalline sapphire bracket material; PB, plastic
bracket material; BI, bovine incisor block.

Table II.One-way ANOVA results for SFE and its components (mJ/m2) (dispersive, polar, acid, and base components)
in various orthodontic raw materials
Orthodontic adhesive (mean 6 SD)

EN LB TP FO MC

SFE 38.38 6 1.40E 38.84 6 1.54E 45.24 6 1.11F 46.98 6 0.99G 47.11 6 1.08G
Dispersive 39.92 6 1.12F 39.85 6 0.95F 42.02 6 0.73H 41.14 6 0.65G 42.76 6 0.63I
Polar –1.53 6 1.95BC –1.04 6 1.75C 3.23 6 1.03E 5.91 6 1.04F 4.29 6 1.27E
Acid 0.09 6 0.10AB 0.05 6 0.07A 0.27 6 0.17B 1.19 6 0.47C 0.23 6 0.15B
Base 10.51 6 2.35C 13.81 6 3.41D 10.99 6 2.08C 7.91 6 1.43AB 17.19 6 3.31E

The same superscripts indicate no statistically significant difference between the groups (P .0.05).
Increasing group mean values were expressed with ascending alphabetical order.
EN, Enlight; LB, Lightbond; FO, Fuji Ortho LC; TP, Transbond Plus; MC, Multi-cure; MB1, stainless steel bracket material (Tomy); MB2, stainless
steel bracket material (Biomaterials); PCA, polycrystalline alumina bracket material; MCS, monocrystalline sapphire bracket material; PB, plastic
bracket material; BI, bovine incisor block.

MATERIAL AND METHODS
Five light-cured orthodontic bonding adhesives
were used in this study: a nonfluoride-releasing com-
posite (Enlight [EN], Ormco/A Company, Glendora,
Calif), a fluoride-releasing composite (Lightbond
[LB], Reliance Orthodontics, Itasca, Ill), 2 resin-modi-
fied glass ionomer (RMGI) cements (Fuji-Ortho LC
[FO], GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan; Multi-cure
[MC], 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif), and a compomer
(Transbond Plus [TP], 3M Unitek). Specimens were
prepared by using Teflon (DuPont, Seoul, Korea)
templates (diameter,12.0 mm; depth, 2.0 mm) accord-
ing to the manufacturer’s instructions. Template plates
were positioned on the top of glass slides. Each bonding
material was placed into the holes until the material was
flush with the top of the template. A second slide was
placed on top, pushed down to ensure a flat dorsal sur-
face and then gently removed. All materials were han-
dled according to the manufacturers’ instructions and
light cured for 40 seconds (20 seconds from the top
and 20 seconds from the bottom).
Five kinds of bracket materials were used in this
study: 2 stainless steel ([MB1], Tomy, Tokyo, Japan;
[MB2] Biomaterials, Seoul, Korea), a polycrystalline
alumina (PCA, Tomy), a monocrystalline sapphire
(MCS, HT, Seoul, Korea), and a plastic (PB, Tomy).
Each material was fabricated and polished the same as
real brackets and provided in a uniform size (12.0 3
10.0 3 2.0 mm) by the manufacturers.
Three freshly extracted, healthy bovine incisors
(BIs) were cleaned with a rotary brush and pumice,
and stored in 1% aqueous solution of chloramine-T
(Junsei Chemical, Tokyo, Japan) at 4 C. Each incisor
was embedded in an acrylic mold with the labial surface
parallel to the mold base.
Every specimen was carefully cleaned with the
following procedures immediately before measuring sur-
face characteristics to maintain the same surface condition
and prevent any changes in surface characteristics during
the experiments. All specimens were soaked for 10
minutes in 1% sodium dodecyl sulfate. Then they were
washed 3 times with phosphate-buffered saline solution
(pH 7.4) and cleaned rigorously by using an ultrasonic
cleaner in a solution of methanol and distilled deionized
water for 1 minute. Additional cleaning was done by using
the ultrasonic cleaner in distilled water for 10 minutes.
All specimens were air dried after cleaning.
SR was analyzed by using confocal laser scanning
microscopy (Axiovert 200 M, Carl Zeiss, Thornwood,
NY). The multi-argon laser emits light with a wavelength
of 633 nm. This allows the calculation of the arithmetic
mean of SR from a mean plane in the sampling area (245
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Ahn et al 671
Volume 136, Number 5

Table I. Continued
Bracket material (mean 6 SD)
BI
MB1 MB2 PCA MCS PB (mean 6 SD)

0.54 6 0.02F 0.58 6 0.02G 0.45 6 0.02E 0.28 6 0.03A 0.33 6 0.02B 0.98 6 0.03H

Table II. Continued

Bracket material (mean 6 SD)

BI
MB1 MB2 PCA MCS PB (mean 6 SD)

31.80 6 1.03A 36.66 6 1.36D 34.33 6 1.52B 33.47 6 2.16B 35.48 6 1.51C 39.03 6 1.94E
31.64 6 1.01A 39.68 6 1.06F 33.72 6 0.93B 35.29 6 1.35C 37.83 6 0.89D 38.88 6 1.08E
0.21 6 1.08D –2.99 6 1.49A 0.60 6 1.99D –1.83 6 1.79A,B,C –2.36 6 1.64AB 0.17 6 1.48D
0.04 6 0.05A 0.45 6 0.38B 0.05 6 0.04A 0.17 6 0.19AB 0.05 6 0.05AB 0.06 6 0.06A
6.45 6 1.87A 9.98 6 1.94BC 20.74 6 3.34F 6.49 6 3.50A 9.91 6 2.28BC 7.95 6 2.94AB

3 245 3 60 mm). SFE consists of dispersive (gLW) and RESULTS

polar acid-base components (gAB). The polar acid-base
components were further divided into acid (g1) and
base (g–) components. SFE and its component parts
were measured by the sessile drop method. Three probe
liquids of different polarities were used: 1-bromonaph-
thalene (ACROS Organics, Fairlawn, NJ), formamide
(Mallinckrodt Baker, Phillipsburg, NJ), and distilled de-
ionized water. A video camera equipped with an image
analyzer (Phoenix 300, Surface Electro Optics, Seoul,
Korea) visualized the shape of the drop and determined
the contact angle. Right and left contact angles of each
drop were averaged to give 1 contact angle per drop.
The SFE and its components—gLW, gAB, g1, and g–—
were calculated by combining contact angle measure-
ments from the interfaced computer according to the
approach proposed by van Oss et al.11
Three specimens of each material were used. Each
experiment was performed 5 times for each specimen.
The surface characteristics of the 5 orthodontic adhe-
sives, the 5 bracket materials, and the BI block were an-
alyzed by using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to
investigate which material showed the greatest SFE. Mul-
tiple comparisons were done with the Duncan multiple
range tests at a level of P \0.05. Pearson correlation
analysis was used to compare the relationships between
SR and SFE characteristics of the various materials.
SR ranged from 0.28 to 0.98 mm, and there were
significant differences among the orthodontic materials
(Table I, Fig 1). MCS had the smoothest surfaces,
whereas BIs showed the roughest surfaces.
There were also significant differences in SFE and
its components among the materials, but the pattern
was different from SR (Table II, Fig 2). The range of
SFE was 31.8 to 47.11 millijoules (mJ) per square me-
ter. The RMGIs (FO and MC) had the highest SFE,
whereas MB1 had the lowest SFE. The dispersive com-
ponent of SFE, gLW, was 31.64 to 42.76 mJ per square
meter. MB1 had the lowest value, and MC had the
highest value. The polar component of SFE, gAB, had
values from –2.99 to 5.91 mJ per square meter. MB2
had negative and lower values than the other materials,
and FO had positive and significantly higher values than
the others. All surfaces of the orthodontic materials
were strongly basic and weakly acidic except FO, which
showed the lowest g– and the highest g1 (Table II).
Generally, orthodontic adhesives had higher SFE
and dispersive components than did bracket materials.
The RMGIs had the highest value in SFE, particularly,
the dispersive and polar components among the ortho-
dontic materials. BIs showed intermediate SFE, and
its components were between the bracket materials
and the orthodontic adhesives.
672 Ahn et al
Table III. Results of Pearson correlation coefficient test
between surface roughness and surface free energy of
various orthodontic materials (no significant correla-
tions)
Dispersive Polar Acid Base
SFE component component component component
SR –0.017 –0.002 –0.024 –0.180 –0.136
As a result of the Pearson correlation coefficient
test, there was an unclear relationship between the SR
and the SFE components of orthodontic materials
(Table III).
DISCUSSION
It is well known that rough surfaces favor the accu-
mulation of plaque and increase the available surface
areas for bacterial colonization.8 A previous study
showed that SR varied among different dental mate-
rials.12 We also found significant differences in SR
among orthodontic materials. Although there were sta-
tistically significant differences in SR, there were only
small variations in SR except BIs (Table I).
BI enamel was used to analyze the surface charac-
teristics of enamel instead of human enamel, because
it is difficult to achieve sufficient surface areas to mea-
sure SFE characteristics from natural untreated human
teeth, and a previous study reported that bovine teeth
are a reliable substitute.13 This study showed that BIs
had the roughest surfaces, which might be due to ridges,
grooves, and curved surfaces of enamel. A previous
study reported that the SR of human enamel was up to
4.50 mm.12 Because BIs are larger than human incisors,
the SR of BIs (about 1.0 mm) in this study would be
smoother than those of human enamel. Although the
enamel surfaces of BIs are rougher than the other ortho-
dontic materials, we did not flatten the enamel surface
of the BIs because surface grinding and polishing can
significantly influence SFE components; this could pro-
vide undesirable information about bacterial adhesion
to enamel surface.
Except for the BI surfaces, stainless steel had
rougher surfaces than the other orthodontic materials;
the smoothest surface was found in MCS. Of the ortho-
dontic adhesives, SR was intermediate among those of
bracket materials. However, the ranges in SR of ortho-
dontic adhesives were relatively uniform (\0.05 mm
of mean SR) despite statistical significance.
In contrast to SR, completely different results were
observed in the SFE and its components. There were
significant variations in SFE and its components among
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
November 2009
the materials (Table II). The differences in SFE and its
components might be due to different physicochemical
properties and compositions. In particular, the RMGIs
(FO and MC) had the highest SFE, gLW and gAB, which
means that RMGI surfaces have higher SFE—particu-
larly, stronger dispersive and polar properties than the
other materials. The highest SFE, gLW and gAB, might
be mainly due to different chemical compositions.
RMGIs contain highly reactive fluoro-aluminosilicate
glass fillers from which fluoride ions are continuously
diffused and released as the result of ion exchange in
the aqueous environment.14-16 These differences can
be partly explained by the differences in setting mecha-
nisms and reaction activities in the surfaces. The initial
setting of the RMGIs is performed by light-activated po-
lymerization, followed by an acid-base reaction from
the absorption of water.14,16 The dynamic reaction pro-
cesses from the surface of RMGIs might be associated
with high SFE, particularly dispersive property and
acid-base polarity on the surfaces. In contrast to the
RMGIs, the main filler in composite adhesives is inert
glass dispersed in methacrylate monomers, which might
contribute to relative lower SFE characteristics than
RMGIs. Intermediate SFE values of the compomer
can be explained by its intermediate composition be-
tween that of the RMGIs and the composite (Table II).
The differences in SFE characteristics between or-
thodontic adhesives and bracket materials can be ex-
plained by their differences in surface reactivities.
Bracket materials might have fewer reactive surfaces
than orthodontic adhesives, because bracket materials
are made from stable metal alloys or ceramics, and
have stable crystal structures and orientations. In case
of RMGIs and compomers, however, polymerization
and polyacid neutralization including fluoride release
continue in the aqueous phase for long periods.17 In ad-
dition, relatively impermeable composites are reported
to react to exogenous components, such as fluoride, af-
ter exposure.16 The differences in surface reactivity can
influence SFE characteristics of orthodontic materials.
In the study of Eliades et al,18 bracket metal
showed the highest critical surface tension among the
bracket materials, suggesting a higher potential for in-
creased plaque-retaining capacity. A significant corre-
lation between SFE and its plaque-retaining capacity
has been established, with the higher energies showing
a favorable effect on bacterial adherence.19 A recent
study showed that Streptococcus (S) mutans adhered
to metal brackets more than to ceramic and plastic
brackets.20 However, Fournier et al21 showed that bind-
ing affinity of S mutans to metal brackets was lower
than to plastic and porcelain brackets. The opposite re-
sults might be due to the differences in SFE
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 136, Number 5
characteristics between the materials used in the previ-
ous studies. In our study, the 2 metals showed signifi-
cantly different SFE characteristics; MB1 had the
lowest SFE, the lowest dispersive component, and in-
termediate polar property, whereas MB2 had interme-
diate SFE and dispersive component and the lowest
polar property. These differences might be mainly
due to the type of metals, which can influence bacterial
binding. Differences in fabrication procedures can
partly influence the differences in SFE components,
since physical and chemical changes in materials can
affect relevant surface properties.22
Changes in SR of a solid surface influence the con-
tact angle, which can cause changes in SFE characteris-
tics.9 However, we found no evident relationships
between SR and SFE characteristics (Table III) in this
study. This might be due to small variations in SR
among the different materials and among the same ma-
terials. Previous studies reported that minor variations
in SR (\0.2 mm) had no significant effects on the con-
tact angles for SFE measurement and bacterial adhe-
sion.9,23 In addition, different chemical compositions
of the materials can influence insignificant relationships
between SR and SFE characteristics. As a result, SFE
and its components could influence the bacterial adhe-
sion to orthodontic materials more than SR.
Because a material with higher SFE attracts more
cariogenic bacteria, greater bacterial adhesion would
be expected in a material with higher SFE.7-9 In partic-
ular, the van der Waals interaction defined by the disper-
sive component and the acid-base polar interaction
defined by the polar component tend to create strong ini-
tial adhesion between oral bacteria and a material sur-
face.24,25 In contrast to SFE and its dispersive and
polar components, the effect of acid and base compo-
nents on bacterial adhesion has not been clearly ex-
plained. In addition, all surfaces of the orthodontic
materials were strongly basic and weakly acidic except
FO (Table II). Considering SFE and its dispersive and
polar properties, one would expect higher bacterial ad-
hesions in the order of RMGIs, compomer, composites,
and bracket materials. Some bracket materials (PCA
and MB1) showed higher polarities than composites,
but the differences in polarity might be too small to
have a significant effect on bacterial adhesion (Table
II). This is partly supported by previous studies that
showed that oral bacteria adhered to RMGI more than
to composite adhesives, and adhesion of cariogenic
streptococci to orthodontic adhesives is significantly
higher than that to bracket materials.26,27
BIs showed a similar SFE to composite adhesives but
a slightly higher SFE than bracket materials. In case of dis-
persive and polar components, BIs showed intermediate
Ahn et al 673
characteristics between bracket materials and composite
adhesives. This study suggests that oral bacteria can ad-
here to human enamel more than to composite adhesives
and bracket materials, because BIs had significantly
rougher surfaces than composites and bracket materials.
Clinical observation has indicated that the most
common sites for enamel demineralization are at the
junction between the bonding adhesive and the enamel,
just peripheral and commonly gingival to the bracket
base.28 This study suggests that orthodontic adhesives
have more favorable surface characteristics for bacterial
adhesion than bracket materials, because bracket mate-
rials have lower SFE, specifically in the polarity and dis-
persive components than adhesives. Also, orthodontic
adhesives are peripheral to brackets and closer to the
enamel surfaces. Furthermore, the clinical methods to
prepare orthodontic adhesives would provide much
rougher surfaces than those used to prepare the adhesive
surfaces (between the glass slab and Teflon) in this
study. The remaining adhesive around bracket bases
could provide suitable sites for the rapid attachment
and growth of oral microorganisms.29 These findings in-
dicate that the adhesive around brackets should be re-
moved carefully during the bonding procedure.
Although bacterial adhesion to bracket materials
might be lower than that to bonding adhesives, careful
oral hygiene should be required to prevent enamel de-
mineralization around brackets because the complex
configuration of the brackets can impede access to the
tooth surfaces for cleaning, and the rougher surface of
the enamel retains more oral bacteria.
CONCLUSIONS
This study was undertaken to analyze the difference in
SR and SFE components of various orthodontic materials.
There were significant differences in SR and SFE charac-
teristics among orthodontic materials. There were small
variations in SR among orthodontic materials despite sta-
tistically significant differences in SR. Stainless steel
showed the roughest surface, and monocrystalline sap-
phire had the smoothest surface. In general, orthodontic
bonding adhesives showed higher SFE and higher disper-
sive components on their surfaces than bracket materials.
RMGIs showed the highest SFE. However, no significant
relationship was found between SR and SFE of orthodon-
tic materials. This study suggests that orthodontic adhe-
sives have more favorable surface characteristics for
bacterial adhesion than bracket materials.
We thank Tomy, Reliance Orthodontic Products,
Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, 3M Unitek, Ormco/A
Company, and GC Corporation for kindly supplying the
materials.
674 Ahn et al
REFERENCES
1. Chestnutt IG, MacFarlane TW, Stephen KW. An in vitro investi-
gation of the cariogenic potential of oral streptococci. Arch Oral
Biol 1994;39:589-93.
2. Featherstone JD. The science and practice of caries prevention.
J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:887-99.
3. Babaahmady KG, Challacombe SJ, Marsh PD, Newman HN.
Ecological study of Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sobri-
nus and Lactobacillus spp. at subsites from approximal dental pla-
que from children. Caries Res 1998;32:51-8.
4. Hamada S, Slade HD. Biology, immunology, and cariogenicity of
Streptococcus mutans. Microbiol Rev 1980;44:331-84.
5. Huser MC, Baehni PC, Lang R. Effects of orthodontic bands on
microbiologic and clinical parameters. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1990;97:213-8.
6. Rosenbloom RG, Tinanoff N. Salivary Streptococcus mutans
levels in patients before, during, and after orthodontic treatment.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:35-7.
7. Busscher HJ, Weerkamp AH, ven der Mei HC, van Pelt AW, de
Jong HP, Arends J. Measurement of the surface free energy of bac-
terial cell surfaces and its relevance for adhesion. Appl Environ
Microbiol 1984;48:980-3.
8. Quirynen M, Marechal M, Busscher HJ, Weerkamp AH,
Darius PL, van Steenberghe D. The influence of surface free en-
ergy and surface roughness on early plaque formation, an in
vivo study in man. J Clin Periodontol 1990;17:138-44.
9. Quirynen M, Bollen CM. The influence of surface roughness and
surface free-energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in
man. A review of literature. J Clin Periodontol 1995;22:1-14.
10. van Loosdrecht MC, Norde W, Zehnder AJ. Physical chemical de-
scription of bacterial adhesion. J Biomater Appl 1990;5:91-106.
11. Van Oss CJ, Good RJ, Chaudhury MK. Additive and nonadditive
surface tension components and the interpretation of contact an-
gles. Langmuir 1988;4:884-91.
12. Bollen CM, Lambrecht P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface
roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface rough-
ness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature.
Dent Mater 1997;13:258-69.
13. Reeh ES, Douglas WH, Levine MJ. Lubrication of human and bo-
vine enamel compared in an artificial mouth. Arch Oral Biol 1995;
40:1063-72.
14. Tay FR, Pashley EL, Huang C. The glass-ionomer phase in resin-
based restorative materials. J Dent Res 2001;80:1808-12.
15. Vermeersch G, Leloup G, Vreven J. Fluoride release from glass-
ionomer cement, compomers and composites. J Oral Rehabil
2001;28:26-32.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
November 2009
16. Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing re-
storative materials. Fluoride release and uptake characteristics,
antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent
Mater 2007;23:343-62.
17. Young AM, Rafeeka SA, Howlett JA. FTIR investigation of
monomer polymerization and polyacid neutralisation kinetics
and mechanisms in various aesthetic dental restorative materials.
Biomaterials 2004;25:823-33.
18. Eliades T, Eliades G, Brantley W. Microbial attachment on ortho-
dontic appliances: wettability and early pellicle formation on
bracket materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:
351-60.
19. Glantz PO, Jendresen MD, Baier RE. On clinical registrations of
contact angle. In: Leach SA, Frank RM, editors. Surface and col-
loid phenomena in the oral cavity: methodological aspects.
Washington, DC: IRL Press; 1982. p. 119-28.
20. Ahn SJ, Kho HS, Lee SW, Nahm DS. Roles of salivary proteins in
the adherence of oral streptococci to various orthodontic brackets.
J Dent Res 2002;81:411-5.
21. Fournier A, Payant L, Bouclin R. Adherence of Streptococcus
mutans to orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1998;114:414-7.
22. Knorr SD, Combe EC, Wolff LF, Hodges JS. The surface free
energy of dental gold-base materials. Dent Mater 2005;21:
272-7.
23. Bollen CM, Papaioanno W, van Eldere J, Schepers E,
Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. The influence of abutment sur-
face roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucosi-
tis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:201-11.
24. Della Volpe C, Siboni S. Acid-base surface free energies of solids
and the definition of scales in the Good-van Oss-Chaudhury the-
ory. J Adhes Sci Technol 2000;14:235-72.
25. Sardin S, Morrier JJ, Benay G, Barsotti O. In vitro streptococcal
adherence on prosthetic and implant materials. Interactions with
physicochemical surface properties. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:
140-8.
26. Ahn SJ, Lim BS, Lee YK, Nahm DS. Quantitative determination
of adhesion pattern of cariogenic streptococci to various ortho-
dontic adhesives. Angle Orthod 2006;76:867-73.
27. Lim BS, Lee SJ, Lee JW, Ahn SJ. Quantitative analysis of adhe-
sion of cariogenic streptococci to orthodontic raw materials.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:882-8.
28. Gwinnett AJ, Ceen RF. Plaque distribution on bonded brackets:
a scanning microscope study. Am J Orthod 1979;75:667-77.
29. Weitman RT, Eames WB. Plaque accumulation on composite sur-
faces after various finishing procedures. J Am Dent Assoc 1975;
91:101-6.