4.5 Article

In vitro evaluation of a multispecies oral biofilm over antibacterial coated titanium surfaces

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10856-018-6168-8

关键词

-

资金

  1. Klockner Implant System

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Peri-implantitis is an infectious disease that affects the supporting soft and hard tissues around dental implants and its prevalence is increasing considerably. The development of antibacterial strategies, such as titanium antibacterial-coated surfaces, may be a promising strategy to prevent the onset and progression of peri-implantitis. The aim of this study was to quantify the biofilm adhesion and bacterial cell viability over titanium disc with or without antibacterial surface treatment. Five bacterial strains were used to develop a multispecies oral biofilm. The selected species represent initial (Streptococcus oralis and Actinomyces viscosus), early (Veillonella parvula), secondary (Fusobacterium nucleatum) and late (Porphyromonas gingivalis) colonizers. Bacteria were sequentially inoculated over seven different types of titanium surfaces, combining different roughness level and antibacterial coatings: silver nanoparticles and TESPSA silanization. Biofilm formation, cellular viability and bacterial quantification over each surface were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy, confocal microscopy and real time PCR. Biofilm formation over titanium surfaces with different bacterial morphologies could be observed. TESPSA was able to significantly reduce the cellular viability when compared to all the surfaces (p<0.05). Silver deposition on titanium surface did not show improved results in terms of biofilm adhesion and cellular viability when compared to its corresponding non-coated surface. The total amount of bacterial biofilm did not significantly differ between groups (p>0.05). TESPSA was able to reduce biofilm adhesion and cellular viability. However, silver deposition on titanium surface seemed not to confer these antibacterial properties. [GRAPHICS] .

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据