| Literature DB >> 26273590 |
Pedro Paulo Cardoso Pita1, José Augusto Rodrigues2, Claudia Ota-Tsuzuki1, Tatiane Ferreira Miato1, Elton G Zenobio3, Gabriela Giro1, Luciene C Figueiredo1, Cristiane Gonçalves1, Sergio A Gehrke4, Alessandra Cassoni1, Jamil Awad Shibli1.
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.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26273590 PMCID: PMC4529887 DOI: 10.1155/2015/159625
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Scanning electron microphotograph of the implant surface topography: (a) as-machined implant surface and (b) sandblasted acid-etched surface.
Figure 2Atomic force microscopy (AFM) of the implant surface topography: (a) as-machined implant surface and (b) sandblasted acid-etched surface.
Mean ± standard deviation of the as-machined (MS) and titanium discs blasted with titanium oxide particles and washed with maleic acid solution (SAE) profilometry.
| Implant surface topography* | Ra ( | Rq ( | Rz ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| As-machined (M) | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.01 | 1.61 ± 0.10 |
|
| |||
| Sandblasted acid-etched | 0.87 ± 0.14 | 1.12 ± 0.18 | 5.14 ± 0.69 |
Statistically significant between the implant surface topographies (Student's t-test P = 0.0001), M < SAE; Ra: arithmetic average of the absolute values of all profile points; Rq: the root-mean-square of the values of all points; Rz: the average value of the absolute heights of the five highest peaks and the depths of the five deepest valleys.
Figure 3Mean ± standard deviation of the amount of adsorbed dye released after the assay (P > 0.05; two-way ANOVA). Letters: differences among biofilm accumulated by each species (P < 0.05; two-way ANOVA/Tukey test). Different letters indicate groups with distinct characteristics. Capital letters compare SAE surfaces, while lower case letters compare M surfaces.
Figure 4Representative scanning electron microscopy (×10,000) in a back scattering mode (BSE) of the Streptococcus sanguinis in (a) as-machined (M) and (b) sandblasted acid-etched (SAE) surface. Note proliferation of the S. sanguinis in the pitches and notches of the SAE surface.