The surface free energy of dental gold-based materials

Shawn D. Knorr; Edward C. Combe; Larry F. Wolff; James S. Hodges

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2004.06.002

The surface free energy of dental gold-based materials

Shawn D. Knorr, Edward C. Combe, Larry F. Wolff, James S. Hodges

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

42 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: A gold composite material (Captek™) has been developed which is claimed to resist plaque deposition. This study's aim was to compare the surface free energy (SFE) of this composite material with that of a type III casting gold. Methods: Contact angle measurements, using the Wilhelmy technique, were made on four bar-shaped samples of each material, using five test liquids (diiodomethane, ethylene glycol, formamide, glycerol and water) and four measurements per sample per liquid. For each material, the dispersive, Lewis acid and Lewis base components of SFE (γ_S^D, γ_S⁺, γ_S^-, respectively) were estimated by least squares analysis and also by a Bayesian method. Results: The gold composite material and the type III casting gold did not differ significantly in their γ_S^D values (95% confidence interval for gold composite minus type III gold, -5.0 to +2.7). Both materials had low γ_S⁺ values in common with most solids. The gold composite had a significantly lower Lewis base component of SFE than the type III gold-8.4mN/m for the former material compared to 19.1mN/m for the latter (95% confidence interval for gold composite minus type III gold, -16.4 to -4.9). The difference between materials could be related to the lack of non-precious metals and the structure of the gold composite material. Conclusions: It is hypothesized that difference in γ_S ^- components of SFE may be an important parameter in predicting bacterial adhesion and plaque resistance. Methods that only determine SFE as a single parameter may be unable to differentiate adequately between dental restorative materials.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	272-277
Number of pages	6
Journal	Dental Materials
Volume	21
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.06.002
State	Published - Mar 2005

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors are grateful to the Captek Division of Precious Chemicals Ltd, FL, for support of this research, including the preparation and supply of the specimens. This research was supported by NIDCR grant P30 DE09737 (Dr Hodges) and by the Minnesota Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics.

Keywords

Gold
Surface free energy

Publisher link

10.1016/j.dental.2004.06.002

Find It

Find It at U of M Libraries

Cite this

@article{6cbdb26b455246e39623afa6de849745,

title = "The surface free energy of dental gold-based materials",

abstract = "Objective: A gold composite material (Captek{\texttrademark}) has been developed which is claimed to resist plaque deposition. This study's aim was to compare the surface free energy (SFE) of this composite material with that of a type III casting gold. Methods: Contact angle measurements, using the Wilhelmy technique, were made on four bar-shaped samples of each material, using five test liquids (diiodomethane, ethylene glycol, formamide, glycerol and water) and four measurements per sample per liquid. For each material, the dispersive, Lewis acid and Lewis base components of SFE (γSD, γS+, γS-, respectively) were estimated by least squares analysis and also by a Bayesian method. Results: The gold composite material and the type III casting gold did not differ significantly in their γSD values (95% confidence interval for gold composite minus type III gold, -5.0 to +2.7). Both materials had low γS+ values in common with most solids. The gold composite had a significantly lower Lewis base component of SFE than the type III gold-8.4mN/m for the former material compared to 19.1mN/m for the latter (95% confidence interval for gold composite minus type III gold, -16.4 to -4.9). The difference between materials could be related to the lack of non-precious metals and the structure of the gold composite material. Conclusions: It is hypothesized that difference in γS - components of SFE may be an important parameter in predicting bacterial adhesion and plaque resistance. Methods that only determine SFE as a single parameter may be unable to differentiate adequately between dental restorative materials.",

keywords = "Gold, Surface free energy",

author = "Knorr, {Shawn D.} and Combe, {Edward C.} and Wolff, {Larry F.} and Hodges, {James S.}",

note = "Funding Information: The authors are grateful to the Captek Division of Precious Chemicals Ltd, FL, for support of this research, including the preparation and supply of the specimens. This research was supported by NIDCR grant P30 DE09737 (Dr Hodges) and by the Minnesota Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics.",

year = "2005",

month = mar,

doi = "10.1016/j.dental.2004.06.002",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "21",

pages = "272--277",

journal = "Dental Materials",

issn = "0109-5641",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The surface free energy of dental gold-based materials

AU - Knorr, Shawn D.

AU - Combe, Edward C.

AU - Wolff, Larry F.

AU - Hodges, James S.

N1 - Funding Information: The authors are grateful to the Captek Division of Precious Chemicals Ltd, FL, for support of this research, including the preparation and supply of the specimens. This research was supported by NIDCR grant P30 DE09737 (Dr Hodges) and by the Minnesota Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics.

PY - 2005/3

Y1 - 2005/3

N2 - Objective: A gold composite material (Captek™) has been developed which is claimed to resist plaque deposition. This study's aim was to compare the surface free energy (SFE) of this composite material with that of a type III casting gold. Methods: Contact angle measurements, using the Wilhelmy technique, were made on four bar-shaped samples of each material, using five test liquids (diiodomethane, ethylene glycol, formamide, glycerol and water) and four measurements per sample per liquid. For each material, the dispersive, Lewis acid and Lewis base components of SFE (γSD, γS+, γS-, respectively) were estimated by least squares analysis and also by a Bayesian method. Results: The gold composite material and the type III casting gold did not differ significantly in their γSD values (95% confidence interval for gold composite minus type III gold, -5.0 to +2.7). Both materials had low γS+ values in common with most solids. The gold composite had a significantly lower Lewis base component of SFE than the type III gold-8.4mN/m for the former material compared to 19.1mN/m for the latter (95% confidence interval for gold composite minus type III gold, -16.4 to -4.9). The difference between materials could be related to the lack of non-precious metals and the structure of the gold composite material. Conclusions: It is hypothesized that difference in γS - components of SFE may be an important parameter in predicting bacterial adhesion and plaque resistance. Methods that only determine SFE as a single parameter may be unable to differentiate adequately between dental restorative materials.

AB - Objective: A gold composite material (Captek™) has been developed which is claimed to resist plaque deposition. This study's aim was to compare the surface free energy (SFE) of this composite material with that of a type III casting gold. Methods: Contact angle measurements, using the Wilhelmy technique, were made on four bar-shaped samples of each material, using five test liquids (diiodomethane, ethylene glycol, formamide, glycerol and water) and four measurements per sample per liquid. For each material, the dispersive, Lewis acid and Lewis base components of SFE (γSD, γS+, γS-, respectively) were estimated by least squares analysis and also by a Bayesian method. Results: The gold composite material and the type III casting gold did not differ significantly in their γSD values (95% confidence interval for gold composite minus type III gold, -5.0 to +2.7). Both materials had low γS+ values in common with most solids. The gold composite had a significantly lower Lewis base component of SFE than the type III gold-8.4mN/m for the former material compared to 19.1mN/m for the latter (95% confidence interval for gold composite minus type III gold, -16.4 to -4.9). The difference between materials could be related to the lack of non-precious metals and the structure of the gold composite material. Conclusions: It is hypothesized that difference in γS - components of SFE may be an important parameter in predicting bacterial adhesion and plaque resistance. Methods that only determine SFE as a single parameter may be unable to differentiate adequately between dental restorative materials.

KW - Gold

KW - Surface free energy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=13444283434&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=13444283434&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.dental.2004.06.002

DO - 10.1016/j.dental.2004.06.002

M3 - Article

C2 - 15705434

AN - SCOPUS:13444283434

SN - 0109-5641

VL - 21

SP - 272

EP - 277

JO - Dental Materials

JF - Dental Materials

IS - 3

ER -

The surface free energy of dental gold-based materials

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Publisher link

Find It

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this