In vitro streptococcal adherence on prosthetic and implant materials. Interactions with physicochemical surface properties

Abstract

summary The aim of this study was to evaluate streptococcal adherence to eight currently used prosthetic and implant materials, and enamel samples, after a salivary coating and to investigate the influence of substrata surface free energy (SFE) and its polar and non‐polar components, as well as bacterial surface characteristics, on bacterial adherence. Our results indicate a moderate hydrophobic character of saliva‐coated surfaces and a pronounced basic character of the polar component of SFE values, except for one substrata. The lowest colonization was observed with enamel samples and the lowest values of adherent bacteria on the different substrata were observed with the hydrophilic bacterial strain. Both the nature of the substrata and the nature of the bacterial strains could have an effect on the extent of bacterial adhesion. When the interrelationship between the number of adherent bacteria and the surface properties of bacteria and substrata were analysed, bacterial adherence correlated with the non‐polar component of substrata SFE (r = 0·8, P = 0·02) and with the adhesion to the solvents (r = 0·8, P < 0·0001). These results are consistent with the thermodynamic theory and underline the importance of acid–base characteristics of the cell surface when one is studying bacterial adherence on dental casting alloys and implant materials.

Adhesion of Streptococcus sanguinis to Dental Implant and Restorative Materials in vitro

“…Indeed, more bacterial cells adhered to three of the dental materials than to enamel which had a moderately hydrophobic surface. These results were in agreement with other studies 4,8,13) . However, it should also be highlighted that fewer bacteria attached to the composite, despite its hydrophilic surface property which was similar to the other materials tested.…”

“…They further showed that the influence of surface roughness was stronger than that of surface free energy and surface hydrophobicity. Generally, rough surfaces promote bacterial adhesion whereas smooth surfaces minimize it [13][14][15] . According to Bollen et al 16) , surface roughness below Ra=0.2 m had no further quantitative and qualitative effects on bacterial adhesion.…”

“…Shown are means and standard deviations of Ra (n=10 for tooth slides, n=5 for dental materials), and for CA mean and quality of fit (=linear equation to experimental dataset) a material like surface free energy, hydrophobicity, and surface roughness, as well as material composition, affect initial bacterial adhesion [13][14][15] .…”

Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to Different Types of Brackets

“…The saliva was immediately clarified by centrifugation at 12,000 g for 20 minutes at 4ЊC and filtered using cellulose acetate membrane filters (pore size 0.22 m). 10 For the formation of an early salivary pellicle, the brackets used were placed into Costar 24-well culture plates (Corning, Corning, NY), and 1 mL of saliva was added to each well. They were incubated for 30 minutes at 37ЊC, after which they were removed and placed in new 24-well plates for the adhesion assays.…”

Dental materials and their performance for the management of screw access channels in implant-supported restorations

“…Currently, various materials are used for filling the access hole before the cementation of a crown or after the insertion of a hybrid abutment crown, but most dentists prefer endofrost pellets and cotton pellets because of their easier retrievability [1][2][3]16) . Differences in surface roughness and surface free energy are the major reasons some materials are more prone to bacterial and fungal adherence than others 34,35) . It is generally recognized that rough surfaces on implants or dental materials support bacterial and fungal adherence and retention of biofilms 31,36) .…”