| Literature DB >> 34907255 |
Chen-Ying Wang1,2, Bor-Shiunn Lee1,3, Ya-Ting Jhang1,4, Kevin Sheng-Kai Ma5, Chen-Pang Huang1,4, Kuan-Lun Fu1,4, Chern-Hsiung Lai6, Wan-Yu Tseng1,2, Mark Yen-Ping Kuo1,2, Yi-Wen Chen7,8.
Abstract
To investigate the effect of Er:YAG laser treatment on lipopolysaccharide (LPS) clearance and fibroblast adhesion on titanium disks. Grade IV titanium discs (n = 216) were used and allocated to 6 groups. Group 1 was the negative control without Porphyromonas gingivalis inoculation. Discs in Groups 2-6 were incubated with P. gingivalis to form a biofilm. Group 3 received 0.12% chlorhexidine irrigation and Group 4 received titanium curettage to remove the biofilm. Group 5 was treated with Er:YAG laser irradiation and Group 6 was treated with titanium curettage plus Er:YAG laser irradiation. The contact angle and surface roughness were measured after the various treatments. The surface microstructure and residual bacteria were examined using scanning electron microscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy, respectively. Residual LPS was examined using a limulus amoebocyte lysate assay and human gingival fibroblast adhesion was quantified using fluorescent microscopy. Curettage plus Er:YAG laser irradiation was the most effective method for removing bacteria and LPS. No significant difference in the amount of fibroblast adhesion was found between the control and Group 6. Combined use of Er:YAG laser irradiation and curettage optimizes LPS clearance and fibroblast adhesion on titanium discs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34907255 PMCID: PMC8671504 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-03434-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1(a) Contact angle photos of P. gingivalis biofilm inoculation on titanium discs after different treatments. (b) Contact angle of P. gingivalis biofilms after different treatment. *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001.
Figure 2Surface roughness analysis (Ra) of P. gingivalis inoculation on titanium discs after different treatments. *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001.
Figure 3Scanning electron microscope images of titanium discs after various treatments (Group 1–Group 6) at magnifications of × 10,000. The red arrow represents titanium particles. The yellow arrow represents scratches caused by curettage.
Figure 4(a) Representative fluorescence microscopy images (× 63) with live (green; SYTO9)/dead (red; propidium iodide) staining of P. gingivalis ATCC 33277 adhesion on rough titanium disc surfaces after different treatments. Each image was taken with the same × 63 object lens with oil and z-stacked for comparison. Scale bar, 10 μm (white). (b) Mean intensity of SYTO 9 and (c) propidium iodide after various treatments. *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001.
Figure 5(a) Photos of residual LPS observed during the LAL assay of the titanium discs following different surface treatments. (b) Ultraviolet (UV) absorbance of the residual LPS on titanium discs following various treatments using UV spectrum absorbance at 545 nm. *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001.
Figure 6(a) Representative fluorescence microscopy images (× 20) of HGF cells stained with ActinGreenTm 488 (green) indicate a cytoskeleton, and DAPI (blue) was used to label nucleic acids. Each image was taken with the same × 20 object lens and z-stacked for comparison. Scale bar, 50 μm (white). (b) HGF cell adhesion assay (cell number per mm2). The cell adhesion number of contaminated titanium discs after different treatments at 24, 72, and 150 h. *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001.
Figure 7The study design consisted of 3 parts, including P. gingivalis bacterial assessment, an HGF adhesion test, and surface topography analysis. Group 1: negative control; Group 2–Group 6: P. gingivalis adhesion on titanium discs; Group 2: positive control without treatment; Group 3: treatment with 0.12% CHX; Group 4: mechanical debridement with Ti curettage; Group 5: treatment with Er:YAG laser irradiation; Group 6: combined debridement with Ti curettage and Er-YAG laser irradiation.