Which Parameters Affect Biofilm Removal with Acoustic Cavitation? A Review

Vyas, Nina; Manmi, Kawa; Wang, Qianxi; Jadhav, Ananda J.; Barigou, Mostafa; Sammons, Rachel; Kuehne, Sarah A.; Walmsley, A. D.

doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2019.01.002

Cited by 54 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 107 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…nuclei (i.e., microbubbles or droplets), was investigated as a potential application for treatment. For treatment with ultrasound alone, the reader is referred to other excellent reviews (Erriu et al 2014;Cai et al 2017;Vyas et al 2019). Twenty-seven sonobactericide articles were selected for this review (Table 1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sonobactericide: An Emerging Treatment Strategy for Bacterial Infections

Lattwein

Shekhar

Kouijzer

et al. 2020

Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ultrasound has been developed as both a diagnostic tool and a potent promoter of beneficial bioeffects for the treatment of chronic bacterial infections. Bacterial infections, especially those involving biofilm on implants, indwelling catheters and heart valves, affect millions of people each year, and many deaths occur as a consequence. Exposure of microbubbles or droplets to ultrasound can directly affect bacteria and enhance the efficacy of antibiotics or other therapeutics, which we have termed sonobactericide. This review summarizes investigations that have provided evidence for ultrasound-activated microbubble or droplet treatment of bacteria and biofilm. In particular, we review the types of bacteria and therapeutics used for treatment and the in vitro and pre-clinical experimental setups employed in sonobactericide research. Mechanisms for ultrasound enhancement of sonobactericide, with a special emphasis on acoustic cavitation and radiation force, are reviewed, and the potential for clinical translation is discussed. (

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sonobactericide: An Emerging Treatment Strategy for Bacterial Infections

Lattwein

Shekhar

Kouijzer

et al. 2020

Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several different techniques have been introduced to improve the efficacy of the standard syringe root canal irrigation. [4][5][6][7][8] More recently, laser-activated irrigation (LAI) was proposed due to its capability to generate micro-cavitations within the irrigant-filled root canal system. [9][10][11][12] Typically, LAI is achieved through the high absorption of an erbiumdoped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser pulse in the irrigant, which initiates a rapid formation of a vapor bubble at the fiber tip (FT) while it is immersed in the irrigant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of Pressures Generated in Root Canal During Er:YAG Laser-Activated Irrigation

Jezeršek

Lukač

et al. 2020

Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine, and Laser Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To measure distribution of pressures along the depth of the root canal during erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser-activated irrigation (LAI) with different modalities and fiber tip (FT) geometries. Background: A new LAI modality based on the delivery of synchronized pairs of Er:YAG laser pulses to generate enhanced irrigant streaming and shock wave emission was recently introduced. However, the influence of FT geometry on efficacy and comparison with single pulse modality is not yet presented. Methods: Pressures within a simulated root canal were simultaneously measured at 5 depths during LAI. Seven FT geometries (conical and cylindrical) and two modalities [Super Short Pulse (SSP) and dual pulse Auto-SWEEPS] were compared. Results: Under the same conditions, average pressures using SSP at 20 mJ of laser energy ranged from 111 Pa for a conical 600 lm FT to 225 Pa for a flat 400 lm FT. The measured pressures for the SSP and the AutoSWEEPS at 20 mJ laser energy were 223 and 308 Pa at the most coronal level and 119 and 126 Pa at the apical constriction, respectively. Measured pressures and irrigant penetration depths at different root canal levels were found to be linearly correlated (R 2 = 0.82; p < 0.01). Conclusions: The generated pressures get progressively reduced from the coronal toward the apical third of the root canal. A strong dependence on the FT design and laser modality was observed. Within the limitations of the study, the AutoSWEEPS modality is more effective than standard SSP in generating pressures within the root canal, without increasing the risk of extrusion.

show abstract

“…There are many factors which influence the removal ability of cavitation from ultrasonic scalers and it is unpredictable, which is a major challenge for optimising it for different cleaning applications. To make efficient use of it the exact mechanisms underlying the cleaning processes require identification so they can be optimized [11]. Cleaning takes place via several mechanisms including microjets formed during bubble collapse creating localised shear forces on the surrounding biofilm [5,12], cavitation cloud collapse [13], shock waves released during bubble implosion, microstreamers, acoustic streaming in the bulk fluid and microstreaming around individual cavitation bubbles as they oscillate [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does ultrasonic cavitation remove dental bacterial biofilm?

Vyas

Wang

Manmi

et al. 2020

Ultrasonics Sonochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bacterial biofilm accumulation is problematic in many areas, leading to biofouling in the marine environment and the food industry, and infections in healthcare. Physical disruption of biofilms has become an important area of research. In dentistry, biofilm removal is essential to maintain health. The aim of this study is to observe biofilm disruption due to cavitation generated by a dental ultrasonic scaler (P5XS, Acteon) using a high speed camera and determine how this is achieved. Streptococcus sanguinis biofilm was grown on Thermanox™ coverslips (Nunc, USA) for 4 days. After fixing and staining with crystal violet, biofilm removal was imaged using a high speed camera (AX200, Photron). An ultrasonic scaler tip (tip 10P) was held 2 mm away from the biofilm and operated for 2 s. Bubble oscillations were observed from high speed image sequences and image analysis was used to track bubble motion and calculate changes in bubble radius and velocity on the surface. The results demonstrate that most of the biofilm disruption occurs through cavitation bubbles contacting the surface within 2 s, whether individually or in cavitation clouds. Cleaning occurs through shape oscillating microbubbles on the surface as well as through fluid flow.

show abstract

Which Parameters Affect Biofilm Removal with Acoustic Cavitation? A Review

Cited by 54 publications

References 107 publications

Sonobactericide: An Emerging Treatment Strategy for Bacterial Infections

Sonobactericide: An Emerging Treatment Strategy for Bacterial Infections

Measurement of Pressures Generated in Root Canal During Er:YAG Laser-Activated Irrigation

How does ultrasonic cavitation remove dental bacterial biofilm?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About