Oral Streptococci Biofilm Formation on Different Implant Surface Topographies

Abstract

The establishment of the subgingival microbiota is dependent on successive colonization of the implant surface by bacterial species. Different implant surface topographies could influence the bacterial adsorption and therefore jeopardize the implant survival. This study evaluated the biofilm formation capacity of five oral streptococci species on two titanium surface topographies. In vitro biofilm formation was induced on 30 titanium discs divided in two groups: sandblasted acid-etched (SAE- n = 15) and as-machined (M- n = 15) surface. The specimens were immersed in sterilized whole human unstimulated saliva and then in fresh bacterial culture with five oral streptococci species: Streptococcus sanguinis, Streptococcus salivarius, Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sobrinus, and Streptococcus cricetus. The specimens were fixed and stained and the adsorbed dye was measured. Surface characterization was performed by atomic force and scanning electron microscopy. Surface and microbiologic data were analyzed by Student's t-test and two-way ANOVA, respectively (P < 0.05). S. cricetus, S. mutans, and S. sobrinus exhibited higher biofilm formation and no differences were observed between surfaces analyzed within each species (P > 0.05). S. sanguinis exhibited similar behavior to form biofilm on both implant surface topographies, while S. salivarius showed the lowest ability to form biofilm. It was concluded that biofilm formation on titanium surfaces depends on surface topography and species involved.

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

“…A similar morphological structure has been shown in previous studies evaluating biofilm formation on titanium discs (Bermejo et al, ; Cavalcanti et al, ; Sanchez et al, ). Similar to our results, no structural differences in the biofilm were identified when comparing discs with different titanium surfaces (Di Giulio et al, ; Ferreira Ribeiro et al, ; Pita et al, ; Scarano, Piattelli, Caputi, Favero, & Piattelli, ; Schmidlin et al, ).However, this investigation demonstrated that moderate‐roughness surfaces showed a higher number of bacteria within their characteristic pores. Similar morphological differences were also reported using SEM by Ferreira Ribeiro et al () in an in vivo investigation assessing the initial bacterial adhesion on titanium discs with different surface micro‐topography (Ferreira Ribeiro et al, ).…”

“…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.…”

Influence of Surface Properties on Adhesion Forces and Attachment ofStreptococcus mutansto ZirconiaIn Vitro

“…Pita et al studied the behavior to form biofilm of five oral streptococci species on various dental implant surface topographies. Their data showed that S. cricetus , S. mutans , and S. sobrinus exhibited higher biofilm formation compared to S. salivarius and S. sanguinis , suggesting that biofilm formation depends on not only the surface topography but also the bacteria species involved [43]. Similarly, Mei et al [44] reported that although both S. sanguinis and S. mutans were sensitive to changes in surface roughness, the initial adhesion forces of the former, initial colonizer, were more affected.…”

Topographic characterization of multispecies biofilms growing on dental implant surfaces: An in vitro model

“…Previous in vitro research on implant surfaces has shown that roughness, surface free energy, wettability, and degree of sterilization may affect biofilm formation, bacterial three-dimensional distribution, and antimicrobial treatment efficacy (Al-Ahmad et al, 2010;Di Giulio et al, 2016;Lin, Liu, Wismeijer, Crielaard, & Deng, 2013;Schmidlin et al, 2013;Song et al, 2015;Yeo, Kim, Lim, & Han, 2012). These studies have used specimens, such as disks or slabs containing the studied surface (Aguayo, Donos, Spratt, & Bozec, 2015;de Avila et al, 2015;Di Giulio et al, 2016;Papavasileiou, Behr, Gosau, Gerlach, & Buergers, 2015;Pita et al, 2015;Ready et al, 2015), but these specimens lack the macro-structural and topographic characteristics of the dental implants used clinical practice. Furthermore, many of these in vitro investigations assessing bacterial adhesion and colonization on implant surfaces have used simple biofilm models, consisting of one or, maximum, two bacterial species, and/ or have used short-term evaluations (24 hr or less), thus, lacking the ability to properly study the dynamics of the biofilm maturation and its potential pathogenicity (Pereira et al, 2015;Schmidt et al, 2017;Sridhar et al, 2016).…”