Nanoparticles for the Treatment of Oral Biofilms: Current State, Mechanisms, Influencing Factors, and Prospects

Abstract

Due to their excellent size, designability, and outstanding targeted antibacterial effects, nanoparticles have become a potential option for controlling oral biofilm‐related infections. However, the formation of an oral biofilm is a dynamic process, and factors affecting the performance of antibiofilm treatments are complex. As such, when examining the existing literature on the antibiofilm effects of nanoparticles, attention should be paid to the specific mechanisms of action at different stages of oral biofilm formation, as well as relevant influencing factors, in order to achieve an objective and comprehensive evaluation. This review is intended to detail the antibacterial mechanisms of nanoparticles during the four stages of the formation of oral biofilms: 1) acquired film formation; 2) bacterial adhesion; 3) early biofilm development; and 4) biofilm maturation. In addition, factors influencing the antibiofilm properties of nanoparticles are summarized from the aspects of nanoparticles themselves, biofilm models, and host factors. The limitations of current research and possible trends for future research are also discussed. In summary, nanoparticles are a promising antioral biofilm strategy. It is hoped that this review can serve as a reference and inspire ideas for further research on the application of nanoparticles for effectively targeting and treating oral biofilms.

Nanostructured Bulk Titanium with Enhanced Properties—Strategies and Prospects for Dental Applications

“…Nanoparticles demonstrating antibiofilm properties merit consideration, due to the increasing global problem with drug-resistant bacteria. [138] Summing up, the ideal surface of a nano Ti dental implant as regards biological response should trigger bone and mucosal tissue integration and contain antimicrobial agents (in the subgingival part of the implant) which do not adversely affect adhesion of the fibroblast and epithelial cells.…”

Nanotheranostics: A Possible Solution for Drug-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and their Biofilms?

“…Some observers attributed the antibiofilm effects of NPs to the same broad antibacterial mechanisms of NPs (i.e., oxidative stress via ROS, the release of metal ions, and non-oxidative stress). However, this broad concept has been debated by other studies arguing more intricate interactive mechanisms between NPs and biofilms, taking into consideration the formation and architecture of biofilms [170]. Gao et al [171] identi-fied the retention of catalytic iron oxide NPs within the biofilm architecture of Streptococcus mutans.…”

“…These ica genes are virulence markers and mediate the full slime (EPS) production of S. aureus and S. epidermidis [174]. NPs could inhibit biofilm formation by preventing initial bacterial adhesion by targeting the cell-surface-associated adhesins [170]. The bacterial surface charge is anionic in both Gram-positive bacteria, owing to the contained teichoic acids, and Gram-negative bacteria, owing to the contained lipopolysaccharides in the extra outer membrane [175].…”

“…The bacterial surface charge is anionic in both Gram-positive bacteria, owing to the contained teichoic acids, and Gram-negative bacteria, owing to the contained lipopolysaccharides in the extra outer membrane [175]. Therefore, NPs could prevent bacterial-surface adhesion and cell-cell adhesion by electrostatic interactions [170]. For instance, carboxymethyl chitosan/amorphous calcium phosphate nanocomplexes decreased the adhesion and biofilm formation of S. mutans and Streptococcus gordonii on the enamel surface via electrostatic interactions.…”

Behavior of Muscle-Derived Stem Cells on Silica Nanostructured Substrates

“…Several studies have tested cellular responses to nanoscale topographic substrates, showing that the contact of different human tissues with nanostructured substrates can influence cellular responses in biomedical applications [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Studies performed to date have reported that various nanostructured substrates can modulate the adhesion and proliferation of different mammalian cell types [ 5 , 6 ]. Recent studies have shown that topographic features of nanostructured substrates, such as their size and spatial arrangement, play a key role in basic cellular responses, such as adhesion and proliferation.…”