Effect of Surface Characteristics of Different Implant Abutment Materials on the Microbial Adhesion-An Invitro Study

被引:1
作者
Munot, Vimal [1 ,2 ]
Nayakar, Ramesh P. [1 ]
Patil, Raghunath [1 ]
机构
[1] KAHER KLE VK Inst Dent Sci, Dept Prosthodont & Crown & Bridge, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
[2] Dr Mutots Dent Clin, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
关键词
Bacterial adhesion; Implant-abutment interface; Peri-implantitis; Scanning electron microscope; BACTERIAL ADHESION; BIOFILM FORMATION; DENTAL IMPLANTS; TITANIUM; ZIRCONIA; COLONIZATION; MICROORGANISMS; TOPOGRAPHY; ROUGHNESS; VIVO;
D O I
10.7860/JCDR/2021/47518.14867
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction: In two-stage implants, micro-gap between the fixture and the abutment and the superstructure are the potential areas to cause peri-implantitis. The surface roughness and surface energy of the implant abutment materials play an important role in the microbial colonisation on their surface and can help the clinician to choose a better implant abutment material in terms of microbial affinity. Aim: To evaluate the effect of surface characteristics of different implant abutment materials on microbial adhesion. Materials and Methods: The comprehensive analytical experimental study was conducted at KAHER KLE VK Institute of Dental Sciences, Belagavi between Jan 2017-Dec 2017. Fortyfive (n=45) identical disc shaped specimens were fabricated using; Zirconia (Group A), Titanium alloy (Group B) and Surgical Grade Stainless Steel (Group C). The surface roughness was assessed for all test groups by Profilometer and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). The Surface energy was evaluated for all the test group specimens using Goniometer. Microbial adhesion and assessment were performed using sonicating and vortexing method for all the three groups using three different bacterial strains. The Colony Forming Units for all the specimens were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis to draw the conclusions from the resultant data. The resultant data was analysed using SPSS software (Version 20). In order to collectively compare the means of the study groups pair-wise comparison of the test group was done using paired t-test with (p<0.05), and correlation between the surface parameters and CFU counts was done using Karl Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results: On pair-wise comparison of three Groups (A, B, and C) with respect to surface roughness, there were statistically significant differences in surface roughness Ra values between all the groups p<0.001. On pair-wise comparison of all the three Groups with respect to surface energy, there were statistically significant differences in Wetting Angle (WA) values between all the groups (p<0.001**) except between group B and A (p=0.15). Zirconia showed the least CFU counts for Pi and Aa though the differences were not statistically significant. Karl Pearson's correlation coefficient between surface roughness and surface energy with CFU counts showed a strongly positive correlation for all microbial species and were statistically significant p<0.001**. Conclusion: There was a strongly positive correlation of surface roughness and surface energy to CFU counts. Zirconia showed a low colonisation potential against P.intermedia and A.actinomycetemcomitans than titanium alloy and surgical grade stainless steel.
引用
收藏
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparative evaluation of the wear resistance of two different implant abutment materials after cyclic loading - An in vitro study
    Ragupathi, Maniamuthu
    Mahadevan, Vallabh
    Azhagarasan, N. S.
    Ramakrishnan, Hariharan
    Jayakrishnakumar, S.
    CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL DENTISTRY, 2020, 11 (03) : 229 - 236
  • [22] Polyspecies biofilm formation on implant surfaces with different surface characteristics
    Schmidlin, Patrick R.
    Mueller, Phillip
    Attin, Thomas
    Wieland, Marco
    Hofer, Deborah
    Guggenheim, Bernhard
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED ORAL SCIENCE, 2013, 21 (01) : 48 - 55
  • [23] Evaluation of the Surface Characteristics of Various Implant Abutment Materials Using Confocal Microscopy and White Light Interferometry
    Park, Jun-Beom
    Yang, Seung-Min
    Ko, Youngkyung
    IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2015, 24 (06) : 650 - 656
  • [24] Early and mature biofilm on four different dental implant materials: An in vivo human study
    Herrmann, Henrike
    Kern, Jaana-Sophia
    Kern, Thomas
    Lautensack, Julia
    Conrads, Georg
    Wolfart, Stefan
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2020, 31 (11) : 1094 - 1104
  • [25] Histological evaluations and inflammatory responses of different dental implant abutment materials: A human histology pilot study
    Sampatanukul, Teeratida
    Serichetaphongse, Pravej
    Pimkhaokham, Atiphan
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2018, 20 (02) : 160 - 169
  • [26] Effect of Different Implant-Abutment Connection Materials on the Fracture Resistance of Zirconia Abutments
    AlAmar, Mohammed
    Alqahtani, Fawaz
    JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2020, 46 (02) : 88 - 92
  • [27] Human osteoblasts response to different dental implant abutment materials: An in-vitro study
    Osman, Muataz A.
    Alamoush, Rasha A.
    Kushnerev, Evgeny
    Seymour, Kevin G.
    Shawcross, Susan
    Yates, Julian M.
    DENTAL MATERIALS, 2022, 38 (09) : 1547 - 1557
  • [28] The effect of titanium implant surface modification on the dynamic process of initial microbial adhesion and biofilm formation
    Han, Aifang
    Li, Xiaolan
    Huang, Baoxin
    Tsoi, James K. -H.
    Matinlinna, Jukka Pekka
    Chen, Zhuofan
    Deng, Dong Mei
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADHESION AND ADHESIVES, 2016, 69 : 125 - 132
  • [29] Bacterial adhesion to orthopaedic implant materials and a novel oxygen plasma modified PEEK surface
    Rochford, E. T. J.
    Poulsson, A. H. C.
    Salavarrieta Varela, J.
    Lezuo, P.
    Richards, R. G.
    Moriarty, T. F.
    COLLOIDS AND SURFACES B-BIOINTERFACES, 2014, 113 : 213 - 222
  • [30] Biofilm formation on the surface of modern implant abutment materials
    Hahnel, Sebastian
    Wieser, Angela
    Lang, Reinhold
    Rosentritt, Martin
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2015, 26 (11) : 1297 - 1301