Comparison of bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on zirconia fabricated by two different approaches: An in vitro and in vivo study
Source abstract
Abstract
Prepared by dry and wet approaches, respectively, the surface properties and bacterial adhesion of conventional zirconia (CZ) and self-glazed zirconia (SGZ) were investigated. Each zirconia was divided into unpolished and polished groups. Our results revealed that SGZ showed significantly lower surface roughness than CZ ( P < 0.05) and lower surface-free energy ( P < 0.05) in both polished and unpolished groups. The number of bacteria attached to SGZ was less than CZ in vitro ( P < 0.05), but no significant difference was found between two kinds of zirconia in vivo ( P > 0.05). Our findings suggest that SGZ, due to its excellent surface characteristics, is superior to CZ in bacterial adhesion and zirconia polishing serves as an indispensable procedure in clinics.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Dental materials and restorations · Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Key Laboratory of Oral Medicine, Guangzhou Institute of Oral Disease, Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China
Funding
Guangzhou Science Technology and Innovation Commission · Clinical Research Promotion Program of Guangzhou Medical University · Guangzhou Science and Technology Program key projects
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.dental.2013.12.00110.1016/j.dental.2013.12.001 ↗
2. 10.3390/ijms1910315710.3390/ijms19103157 ↗
3. 10.3920/BM2014.001110.3920/BM2014.0011 ↗
4. 10.3390/bios901002710.3390/bios9010027 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.02010.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.020 ↗
6. 10.2341/17-073-L10.2341/17-073-L ↗
7. Han J, , Jing Z, , Shen Z. Zirconia ceramics in metal-free implant dentistry. Br Ceram Trans. 2017;116(3):138–150.
8. 10.1080/17436753.2017.133636510.1080/17436753.2017.1336365 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2015.11.02910.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2015.11.029 ↗
10. Kantorski KZ, , Scotti R, , Valandro LF, Surface roughness and bacterial adherence to resin composites and ceramics. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2009;7(1):29–32.
11. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.12.01510.1016/j.prosdent.2014.12.015 ↗
12. Ji B, , Alrayes AA, , Zhao J, Grinding and polishing efficiency of a novel self-glazed zirconia versus the conventional dry-pressed and sintered zirconia ceramics. Adv Appl Ceram. 2018;118(4):1–10.
13. 10.1177/002203451558769010.1177/0022034515587690 ↗
14. Subramani K, , Jung RE, , Molenberg A, Biofilm on dental implants: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(4):616–626.
15. 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.10319910.1016/j.jdent.2019.103199 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.00510.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.005 ↗
17. 10.1371/journal.ppat.100244010.1371/journal.ppat.1002440 ↗
18. 10.4012/dmj.2018-10610.4012/dmj.2018-106 ↗
19. 10.4012/dmj.2018-13710.4012/dmj.2018-137 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.04.00110.1016/j.actbio.2010.04.001 ↗
21. 10.4103/1305-7456.14364610.4103/1305-7456.143646 ↗
22. 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2012.00983.x10.1111/j.1600-0722.2012.00983.x ↗
23. 10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.01410.1016/j.dental.2015.09.014 ↗
24. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02364.x10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02364.x ↗
25. Amoroso PF, , Pier- Francesco A, , Adams RJ, Titanium surface modification and its effect on the adherence of Porphyromonas gingivalis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;17(6):633–637.
26. Quirynen M, , Marechal M, , Busscher H, The influence of surface characteristics on the early bacterial colonization of intra-oral hard surfaces. J Clin Dentistry. 1988;1 Suppl A(20):A14.
27. 10.1016/0260-8774(87)90019-710.1016/0260-8774(87)90019-7 ↗
28. 10.1049/iet-nbt.2013.006710.1049/iet-nbt.2013.0067 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ejpb.2017.06.03010.1016/j.ejpb.2017.06.030 ↗
30. 10.1128/IAI.72.11.6748-6752.200410.1128/IAI.72.11.6748-6752.2004 ↗
31. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01353.x10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01353.x ↗
32. 10.3762/bjnano.9.21110.3762/bjnano.9.211 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2006.02.00410.1016/j.colsurfb.2006.02.004 ↗
34. 10.2217/fmb-2018-004310.2217/fmb-2018-0043 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.06.02310.1016/j.actbio.2019.06.023 ↗
36. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.06.01610.1016/j.prosdent.2016.06.016 ↗
37. 10.4012/dmj.2016-18510.4012/dmj.2016-185 ↗
38. 10.1097/ID.0b013e3182a03ce910.1097/ID.0b013e3182a03ce9 ↗
39. 10.1007/s00784-019-02953-610.1007/s00784-019-02953-6 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.10339310.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103393 ↗
41. 10.1016/j.matlet.2019.05.08910.1016/j.matlet.2019.05.089 ↗