Antiseptics and microcosm biofilm formation on titanium surfaces.

Braz Oral Res

Faculdade de Agronomia e Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil.

Published: May 2016

AI Article Synopsis

  • Oral rehabilitation with dental implants helps restore appearance and chewing ability for patients without teeth, but issues like mucositis and peri-implantitis can arise from bacterial growth, potentially leading to implant loss.
  • The study examined the effectiveness of various antiseptics—chlorhexidine (CHX), chloramine T (CHT), triclosan (TRI), and essential oils (EO)—on preventing bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation using different surface treatments of titanium discs.
  • Results indicated that while roughness levels varied across the surfaces, both CHT and EO were more effective at reducing bacterial counts compared to a saline control, suggesting that they may be better options than the gold standard CHX for managing biofilms.

Article Abstract

Oral rehabilitation with osseointegrated implants is a way to restore esthetics and masticatory function in edentulous patients, but bacterial colonization around the implants may lead to mucositis or peri-implantitis and consequent implant loss. Peri-implantitis is the main complication of oral rehabilitation with dental implants and, therefore, it is necessary to take into account the potential effects of antiseptics such as chlorhexidine (CHX), chloramine T (CHT), triclosan (TRI), and essential oils (EO) on bacterial adhesion and on biofilm formation. To assess the action of these substances, we used the microcosm technique, in which the oral environment and periodontal conditions are simulated in vitro on titanium discs with different surface treatments (smooth surface - SS, acid-etched smooth surface - AESS, sand-blasted surface - SBS, and sand-blasted and acid-etched surface - SBAES). Roughness measurements yielded the following results: SS: 0.47 µm, AESS: 0.43 µm, SB: 0.79 µm, and SBAES: 0.72 µm. There was statistical difference only between SBS and AESS. There was no statistical difference among antiseptic treatments. However, EO and CHT showed lower bacterial counts compared with the saline solution treatment (control group). Thus, the current gold standard (CHX) did not outperform CHT and EO, which were efficient in reducing the biofilm biomass compared with saline solution.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0030DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

biofilm formation
8
oral rehabilitation
8
smooth surface
8
statistical difference
8
compared saline
8
saline solution
8
surface
5
antiseptics microcosm
4
microcosm biofilm
4
formation titanium
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!