Bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on yttria-stabilized, tetragonal zirconia and titanium oral implant materials with low surface roughness - an in situ study

Al‐Ahmad, Ali; Karygianni, Lamprini; Wartenhorst, Max Schulze; Bächle, Maria; Hellwig, Elmar; Follo, Marie; Vach, Kirstin; Han, Jung‐Suk

doi:10.1099/jmm.0.000267

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is controversy on when is the critical point in biofilm development in which surface roughness could have a bigger impact (adhesion, growth or maturation). Some studies have reported a greater influence at early stages(Al‐Ahmad et al, ; Dal Agnol et al, ; Frojd et al, ; Lin, Liu, Wismeijer, Crielaard, & Deng, ), while others have shown a higher impact of rougher surfaces with increasing amounts of bacteria, as biofilms become mature(Al‐Ahmad et al, ; John, Becker, & Schwarz, ). Further studies are needed to identify the critical point in biofilm development for surface topography to have a bigger impact.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different in vivo (Al‐Ahmad et al, , ; de Melo, do Nascimento, Souza, & de Albuquerque, ; Ferreira Ribeiro et al, ; Groessner‐Schreiber, Hannig, Duck, Griepentrog, & Wenderoth, ; John, Becker, & Schwarz, , ; Xing, Lyngstadaas, Ellingsen, Taxt‐Lamolle, & Haugen, ; Zaugg et al, ) and in vitro (Badihi Hauslich, Sela, Steinberg, Rosen, & Kohavi, ; Di Giulio et al, ; Drake, Paul, & Keller, ; Montelongo‐Jauregui, Srinivasan, Ramasubramanian, & Lopez‐Ribot, ; Pita et al, ; Sanchez et al, ; Schmidlin et al, ; Violant, Galofre, Nart, & Teles, ) investigations have studied the impact of implant surface characteristics on biofilm formation, demonstrating that the physic‐chemical characteristics of the surface, mainly its roughness, significantly affected early bacterial colonization, biofilm formation and maturation(Burgers et al, ; Teughels et al, ). However, most of these studies have not used dental implants, but rather specimens, such as discs or slabs made of the implant surfaces, but without taking into account the implant macroscopic and topographic characteristics, such as the threads and the inter‐thread concavities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Biofilm formation on dental implants with different surface micro‐topography: An in vitro study

Bermejo

Sanchez

Llama‐Palacios

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:To compare biofilm formation on whole dental titanium implants with different surface micro-topography. Methods:A multispecies in vitro biofilm model consisting of initial (Streptococcus oralis and Actinomyces naeslundii), early (Veillonella parvula), secondary (Fusobacterium nucleatum) and late colonizers (Porphyromonas gingivalis and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans) was grown for 96 hr on sterile titanium dental implants with either minimal (S a : 0.5-1.0 mm) or moderate-roughness titanium surfaces (S a : 1.1-2.0 mm).The resulting biofilms were studied with Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM) and Scanning Electron Microscope. Concentrations (colony-forming units per mL [CFU/ml]) of each bacterium were measured by quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR) and compared by Student t tests.Results: A biofilm, located mainly at the peak and lateral areas of the implant threads, was observed on both implant surfaces, with a greater biomass and a greater live/dead ratio in moderate-compared to minimal-roughness surface implants. Statistically significant higher values of total bacteria (mean difference = 2.61 × 10 7 CFU/ml; 95% confidence interval -CI [1.91 × 10 6 ; 5.02 × 10 7 ]; p = 0.036), F. Nucleatum (mean difference = 4.43 × 10 6 CFU/ml; 95% CI [1.06 × 10 6 ; 7.80 × 10 6 ]; p = 0.013) andA. actinomycetemcomitans (mean difference = 2.55 × 10 7 CFU/ml; 95% CI [1.07 × 10 7 ; 4.04 × 10 7 ]; p = 0.002), were found in the moderate-compared to minimal-roughness surface dental implants.Conclusions: Implants with moderate-roughness surfaces accumulated more bacterial biomass and significant higher number of pathogenic bacteria (F. nucleatum and A. actinomycetemcomitans), when compared to implants with minimal-roughness surfaces, within a similar biofilm structure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biofilm formation on dental implants with different surface micro‐topography: An in vitro study

Bermejo

Sanchez

Llama‐Palacios

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They determined that after 3 and 5 days there were no significant differences in biofilm composition on the implant surfaces . Subsequent evaluation of initial biofilm formation on titanium and ceramic surfaces with low surface roughness similarly found no significant differences in initial adhesion or biofilm thickness between the titanium and ceramic surfaces . Periodontal pathogens in culture were found to have similar adherence on polished tetragonal zirconia polycrystal disks vs. polished titanium disks .…”

Section: Initial Biofilm Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biofilm as a risk factor in implant treatment

Daubert

Weinstein

2019

Periodontology 2000

120

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article summarizes the microbiological findings at dental implants, drawing distinctions between the peri‐implant microbiome and the periodontal microbiome, and summarizes what is known regarding biofilm as a risk factor for specific stages of implant treatment. Targeted microbial analysis is reviewed as well as the latest results from open‐ended sequencing of the peri‐implant flora. At this time there remains a lack of consensus for a specific microbial profile that is associated with peri‐implantitis, suggesting that there may be other factors which influence the microbiome such as titanium surface dissolution. Therapeutic interventions to address the biofilm are presented at the preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative stages. Evidence supports that perioperative chlorhexidine reduces biofilm‐related implant complications and failure. Regular maintenance for dental implants is also shown to reduce peri‐implant mucositis and implant failure. Maintenance procedures should aim to disrupt the biofilm without damaging the titanium dioxide surface layer in an effort to prevent further oxidation. Evidence supports the use of glycine powder air polishing as a valuable adjunct to conventional therapies for use at implant maintenance visits. For the treatment of peri‐implantitis, nonsurgical therapy has not been shown to be effective, and while surgical intervention is not always predictable, it has been shown to be superior to nonsurgical treatment for decontamination of the implant surface that is not covered by bone.

show abstract

“…A wide range of different implant materials are used in orthopedics. Despite the intensive research currently being performed on different technologies for incorporating antimicrobial agents [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32], only a few studies investigating biofilm formation on different clinically relevant implantation materials have been published [33][34][35][36][37][38]. The dynamic changes associated with biofilm growth [39] make biofilm eradication from clinical materials even more challenging.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural and Functional Dynamics of Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms and Biofilm Matrix Proteins on Different Clinical Materials

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Medical device-associated staphylococcal infections are a common and challenging problem. However, detailed knowledge of staphylococcal biofilm dynamics on clinically relevant surfaces is still limited. In the present study, biofilm formation of the Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 strain was studied on clinically relevant materials—borosilicate glass, plexiglass, hydroxyapatite, titanium and polystyrene—at 18, 42 and 66 h. Materials with the highest surface roughness and porosity (hydroxyapatite and plexiglass) did not promote biofilm formation as efficiently as some other selected materials. Matrix-associated poly-N-acetyl-β-(1-6)-glucosamine (PNAG) was considered important in young (18 h) biofilms, whereas proteins appeared to play a more important role at later stages of biofilm development. A total of 460 proteins were identified from biofilm matrices formed on the indicated materials and time points—from which, 66 proteins were proposed to form the core surfaceome. At 18 h, the appearance of several r-proteins and glycolytic adhesive moonlighters, possibly via an autolysin (AtlA)-mediated release, was demonstrated in all materials, whereas classical surface adhesins, resistance- and virulence-associated proteins displayed greater variation in their abundances depending on the used material. Hydroxyapatite-associated biofilms were more susceptible to antibiotics than biofilms formed on titanium, but no clear correlation between the tolerance and biofilm age was observed. Thus, other factors, possibly the adhesive moonlighters, could have contributed to the observed chemotolerant phenotype. In addition, a protein-dependent matrix network was observed to be already well-established at the 18 h time point. To the best of our knowledge, this is among the first studies shedding light into matrix-associated surfaceomes of S. aureus biofilms grown on different clinically relevant materials and at different time points.

show abstract

Bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on yttria-stabilized, tetragonal zirconia and titanium oral implant materials with low surface roughness - an in situ study

Cited by 20 publications

References 51 publications

Biofilm formation on dental implants with different surface micro‐topography: An in vitro study

Biofilm formation on dental implants with different surface micro‐topography: An in vitro study

Biofilm as a risk factor in implant treatment

Structural and Functional Dynamics of Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms and Biofilm Matrix Proteins on Different Clinical Materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About