Bacterial Adhesion to Grade 4 and Grade 5 Turned and Mildly Acid-Etched Titanium Implant Surfaces: An In Vitro and Ex Vivo Study
Source abstract
Abstract
Aim of the present study was to investigate the bacterial adhesion to titanium (Ti) implant surfaces, different for composition and topographic features. Grade 4 and 5 turned (T-4, T-5,) and mildly acid-etched (MA-4, MA-5) Ti 6 × 1 mm disks were topographically analyzed by scanning electronic microscopy and 3D profilometry. Bacterial cultures (Streptococcus sanguinis) were in vitro seeded and, after two and six hours, adherent bacteria were quantified by colony-forming unit (CFU) counting. Ti samples were also exposed to the oral environment of six periodontally healthy volunteers and, after 12 h, the formed biofilm was evaluated by CFU counting. Inter-group differences were tested by the Mann–Whitney U-Test (α = 0.05). MA surfaces were significantly rougher than T ones, whereas no difference between grade 4 and grade 5 disks was detected. Significantly higher in vitro bacterial adhesion for MA than T disks was shown at two and six hours. Significantly higher values of CFU counting for MA than T surfaces and for grade 5 than grade 4 disks were found at the 12 h-ex vivo test. Bacterial adhesion showed to be sensitive to both Ti surface topography and composition, with possible implications on peri-implant tissue health maintenance.
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
Department of Neurosciences, School of Dentistry, University of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, 35100 Padova, Italy
Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Via L. De Crecchio 6, 80138 Naples, Italy
Department of Engineering, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, via Roma 29, 81031 Aversa (Caserta), Italy
References (37)
Show source-provided references
1. Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: A systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.008 ↗
2. Osseointegrated Titanium Implants:Requirements for Ensuring a Long-Lasting, Direct Bone-to-Implant Anchorage in Man10.3109/17453678108991776 ↗
3. Infectious risks for oral implants: A review of the literature10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130101.x ↗
4. Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: A systematic review10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01775.x ↗
5. The Effect of Titanium Surface Modifications on Dental Implant Osseointegration10.1159/000381694 ↗
6. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01353.x ↗
7. Biofilm on dental implants: A review of the literature
8. Risk indicators for peri-implantitis. A narrative review10.1111/clr.12636 ↗
9. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate and compare implants placed in augmented versus non-augmented extraction sockets: 3-year results10.1902/jop.2011.110205 ↗
10. Peri-implantitis10.1002/JPER.16-0350 ↗
11. Dental Implant Materials: Commercially Pure Titanium and Titanium Alloys10.1111/j.1532-849X.1999.tb00006.x ↗
12. Binary titanium alloys as dental implant materials—A review10.1093/rb/rbx027 ↗
13. Mechanical and clinical properties of titanium and titanium-based alloys (Ti G2, Ti G4 cold worked nanostructured and Ti G5) for biomedical applications10.1016/j.jmrt.2018.07.016 ↗
14. Attachment of Porphyromonas gingivalis to corroded commercially pure titanium and titanium-aluminum-vanadium alloy10.1902/jop.2014.130595 ↗
15. Porphyromonas gingivalis biofilm formation in different titanium surfaces, an in vitro study10.1111/clr.12659 ↗
16. Suggested guidelines for the topographic evaluation of implant surfaces
17. Implant surface roughness and patient factors on long-term peri-implant bone loss10.1111/prd.12177 ↗
18. In vivo and in vitro biofilm formation on two different titanium implant surfaces10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01815.x ↗
19. Abranches, J., Zeng, L., Kajfasz, J.K., Palmer, S.R., Chakraborty, B., Wen, Z.T., Richards, V., Brady, L.J., and Lemos, J. (2018). Biology of Oral Streptococci. Microbiol. Spectr., 6.10.1128/microbiolspec.GPP3-0042-2018 ↗
20. Sonication is superior to scraping for retrieval of bacteria in biofilm on titanium and steel surfaces in vitro10.3109/17453670902947457 ↗
21. Plaque formation on surface modified dental implants10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120601.x ↗
22. Modified Implant Surface with Slower and Less Initial Biofilm Formation10.1111/cid.12140 ↗
23. The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070302.x ↗
24. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the literature10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3 ↗
25. Bacterial adhesion to direct laser metal formed and mildly acid etched implant surfaces10.1016/j.surfcoat.2017.09.011 ↗
26. Influence of abutment material and modifications on peri-implant soft-tissue attachment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of histological animal studies10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.025 ↗
27. Experimental peri-implant mucositis at different implant surfaces10.1111/jcpe.12240 ↗
28. RCT comparing minimally with moderately rough implants. Part 2: Microbial observations10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02255.x ↗
29. The incidence of peri-implantitis for two different implant systems over a period of thirteen years10.1111/jcpe.12017 ↗
30. Long-Term Effect of Surface Roughness and Patients’ Factors on Crestal Bone Loss at Dental Implants. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis10.1111/cid.12457 ↗
31. Is History of Periodontal Disease Still a Negative Risk Indicator for Peri-implant Health under Supportive Post-Implant Treatment Coverage? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis10.11607/jomi.7714 ↗
32. Management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis10.1111/prd.12049 ↗
33. Efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1186/s40729-015-0023-1 ↗
34. Effects of different decontaminating solutions used for the treatment of peri-implantitis on the growth of Porphyromonas gingivalis-an in vitro study10.1556/030.2020.01176 ↗
35. Stájer, A., Kajári, S., Gajdács, M., Musah-Eroje, A., and Baráth, Z. (2020). Utility of Photodynamic Therapy in Dentistry: Current Concepts. Dent. J., 8.10.3390/dj8020043 ↗
36. Adjunctive Systemic and Local Antimicrobial Therapy in the Surgical Treatment of Peri-implantitis: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial10.1177/0022034515601961 ↗
37. Risk for recurrence of disease following surgical therapy of peri-implantitis—A prospective longitudinal study10.1111/clr.13653 ↗