Comparison of bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on zirconia fabricated by two different approaches: an in vitro and in vivo study

References

• Wang Z, Shen Y, Haapasalo M. Dental materials with antibiofilm properties. Dent Mater. 2014;30(2):e1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.12.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hao Y, Huang X, Zhou X, et al. Influence of dental prosthesis and restorative materials interface on oral biofilms. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(10):3157. doi: 10.3390/ijms19103157
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saha S, Tomaro-Duchesneau C, Rodes L, et al. Investigation of probiotic bacteria as dental caries and periodontal disease biotherapeutics. Benef Microbes. 2014;5(4):447–460. doi: 10.3920/BM2014.0011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilea A, Andrei V, Feurdean CN, et al. Saliva, a magic biofluid available for multilevel assessment and a mirror of general health: a systematic review. Biosensors. 2019;9(1):27. doi: 10.3390/bios9010027
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim HK, Kim SH, Lee JB, et al. Effects of surface treatments on the translucency, opalescence, and surface texture of dental monolithic zirconia ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(6):773–779. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dutra DAM, Pereira GKR, Kantorski KZ, et al. Does finishing and polishing of restorative materials affect bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation? A systematic review. Oper Dent. 2018;43(1):E37–E52. doi: 10.2341/17-073-L
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han J, Jing Z, Shen Z. Zirconia ceramics in metal-free implant dentistry. Br Ceram Trans. 2017;116(3):138–150.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang Y, Han JM, Zheng G, et al. Fatigue behaviours of the zirconia dental restorations prepared by two manufacturing methods. Adv Appl Ceram. 2017;116(7):1–8. doi: 10.1080/17436753.2017.1336365
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Wang Y, Wang D, et al. Self-glazed zirconia reducing the wear to tooth enamel. J Eur Ceram Soc. 2016;36(12):2889–2894. doi: 10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2015.11.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kantorski KZ, Scotti R, Valandro LF, et al. Surface roughness and bacterial adherence to resin composites and ceramics. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2009;7(1):29–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solá-Ruíz MF, Agustin- Panadero R, Fons- Font A, et al. A prospective evaluation of zirconia anterior partial fixed dental prostheses: clinical results after seven years. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(6):578–584. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.12.015
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ji B, Alrayes AA, Zhao J, et al. Grinding and polishing efficiency of a novel self-glazed zirconia versus the conventional dry-pressed and sintered zirconia ceramics. Adv Appl Ceram. 2018;118(4):1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Song F, Koo H, Ren D. Effects of material properties on bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. J Dent Res. 2015;94(8):1027–1034. doi: 10.1177/0022034515587690
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Subramani K, Jung RE, Molenberg A, et al. Biofilm on dental implants: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(4):616–626.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kurt A, Cilingir A, Bilmenoglu C, et al. Effect of different polishing techniques for composite resin materials on surface properties and bacterial biofilm formation. J Dent. 2019;90:103199. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.103199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park C, Vang M-S, Park S-W, et al. Effect of various polishing systems on the surface roughness and phase transformation of zirconia and the durability of the polishing systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(3):430–437. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Busscher HJ, Mei HCVD. How do bacteria know they are on a surface and regulate their response to an adhering state? PLoS Pathog. 2012;8(1):e1002440. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002440
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Go H, Park H, Lee J, et al. Effect of various polishing burs on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion in pediatric zirconia crowns. Dent Mater J. 2019;38(2):311–316. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2018-106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan AA, Mohamed BA, Mirza EH, et al. Surface wettability and nano roughness at different grit blasting operational pressures and their effects on resin cement to zirconia adhesion. Dent Mater J. 2019;38(3):388–395. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2018-137
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anselme K, Davidson P, Popa AM, et al. The interaction of cells and bacteria with surfaces structured at the nanometre scale. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(10):3824–3846. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.04.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rashid H. The effect of surface roughness on ceramics used in dentistry: a review of literature. Eur J Dent. 2014;8(4):571. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.143646
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ionescu A, Wutscher E, Brambilla E, et al. Influence of surface properties of resin-based composites on in vitro Streptococcus mutans biofilm development. Eur J Oral Sci. 2012;120(5):458–465. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2012.00983.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lucas TJ, Lawson NC, Janowski GM, et al. Effect of grain size on the monoclinic transformation, hardness, roughness, and modulus of aged partially stabilized zirconia. Dent Mater. 2015;31(12):1487–1492. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badihi Hauslich L, Sela MN, Steinberg D, et al. The adhesion of oral bacteria to modified titanium surfaces: role of plasma proteins and electrostatic forces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:49–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02364.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amoroso PF, Pier- Francesco A, Adams RJ, et al. Titanium surface modification and its effect on the adherence of Porphyromonas gingivalis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;17(6):633–637.
   Google Scholar
• Quirynen M, Marechal M, Busscher H, et al. The influence of surface characteristics on the early bacterial colonization of intra-oral hard surfaces. J Clin Dentistry. 1988;1 Suppl A(20):A14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schubert H. Food particle technology. Part I: properties of particles and particulate food systems. J Food Eng. 1987;6(1):1–32. doi: 10.1016/0260-8774(87)90019-7
   Google Scholar
• Karunakaran G, Suriyaprabha R, Rajendran V, et al. Effect of contact angle, zeta potential and particles size on the in vitro studies of Al2O3 and SiO2 nanoparticles. Nanobiotechnol Lett. 2015;9(1):27–34. doi: 10.1049/iet-nbt.2013.0067
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youshia J, Ali ME, Lamprecht A. Artificial neural network based particle size prediction of polymeric nanoparticles. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2017;119:333–342. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2017.06.030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ge J, Catt DM, Gregory RL. Streptococcus mutans surface-α-enolase binds salivary mucin MG2 and human plasminogen. Infect Immun. 2004;72(11):6748–6752. doi: 10.1128/IAI.72.11.6748-6752.2004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teughels W, Van Assche N, Slipen I, et al. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(Suppl 2):68–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01353.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vollath D, Fischer FD, Holec D. Surface energy of nanoparticles—influence of particle size and structure. Beilstein J Nanotechnol. 2018;9:2265–2276. doi: 10.3762/bjnano.9.211
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereni CI, Zhao Q, Liu Y, et al. Surface free energy effect on bacterial retention. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2006;48(2):143–147. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2006.02.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu B, Macleod LC, Kitten T, et al. Streptococcus sanguinis biofilm formation and interaction with oral pathogens. Future Microbiol. 2018;13(8):915–932. doi: 10.2217/fmb-2018-0043
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li X, Qi M, Sun X, et al. Surface treatments on titanium implants via nanostructured ceria for antibacterial and anti-inflammatory capabilities. Acta Biomater. 2019;94:627–643. doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2019.06.023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heimer S, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, et al. Surface properties of polyetheretherketone after different laboratory and chairside polishing protocols. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(3):419–425. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.06.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tamura Y, Takamizawa T, Shimamura Y, et al. Influence of air-powder polishing on bond strength and surface-free energy of universal adhesive systems. Dent Mater J. 2017;36(6):762–769. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2016-185
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Guo T, Zhao J, et al. Effects of polishing methods on Candida albicans adhesion on cast pure titanium surfaces. Implant Dent. 2013;22(5):546–551. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3182a03ce9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfefferle R, Lümkemann N, Wiedenmann F, et al. Different polishing methods for zirconia: impact on surface, optical, and mechanical properties. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;24(1):395–403. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02953-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Isoshima K, Ueno T, Arai Y, et al. The change of surface charge by lithium ion coating enhances protein adsorption on titanium. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019;100:103393. doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103393
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez-Hernández M, García-Pérez VI, Almaguer-Flores A. Potential of salivary proteins to reduce oral bacterial colonization on titanium implant surfaces. Mater Lett. 2019;252:120–122. doi: 10.1016/j.matlet.2019.05.089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar