Biofilms Developed on Dental Implant Titanium Surfaces with Different Roughness: Comparison Between In Vitro and In Vivo Studies

Abstract

Microbial biofilms developed on dental implants play a major role in perimplantitis' pathogenesis. Many studies have indicated that surface roughness is the main feature favoring biofilm development in vitro, but its actual influence in vivo has still to be confirmed. In this study, the amount of biofilm formed on differently treated titanium surfaces, showing distinct roughness, has been examined both in vivo and in vitro by Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy. In vitro studies availed of biofilm developed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa or by salivary bacteria from volunteer donors. In vivo biofilm production was obtained by exposing titanium discs to the oral cavity of healthy volunteers. In vitro experiments showed that P. aeruginosa and, to a lesser extent, salivary bacteria produce more biomass and develop thicker biofilms on laser-treated and sandblasted titanium surfaces with respect to machined ones. In vivo experiments confirmed that bacterial colonization starts on sites of surface unevenness, but failed to disclose biomass differences among biofilms formed on surfaces with different roughness. Our study revealed that biofilm developed in vitro is more easily influenced by surface features than biofilm formed by complex communities in the mouth, where the cooperation of a variety of bacterial species and the presence of a wide range of nutrients and conditions allow bacteria to optimize substrate colonization. Therefore, quantitative differences observed in vitro among surfaces with different characteristics may not be predictive of different colonization rates in vivo.

In situ substrate-formed biofilms using IDODS mimic supragingival tooth-formed biofilms

“…Coinciding with our findings, Bevilacqua et al [43] recently examined the amount of biofilm formed on differently treated titanium surfaces both in situ and in vitro by CLSM. Unlike the results observed in the in- vitro biofilm, in-situ experiments showed no difference in the amount of biofilm formed on the different surfaces after a 24-h incubation in the mouth of healthy volunteers.…”

“…Unlike the results observed in the in- vitro biofilm, in-situ experiments showed no difference in the amount of biofilm formed on the different surfaces after a 24-h incubation in the mouth of healthy volunteers. Consequently, these authors concluded that quantitative differences observed in- vitro models among surfaces with distinct roughness may not be predictive of different colonisation rates in situ [43]. …”

“…In fact, it has been demonstrated that biofilm developed in- vitro is more easily influenced by surface features than biofilm formed in- situ [43]. In the in- situ biofilm, the interactions between members of the complex bacterial community, the presence of a wide range of nutrients, and other factors such as the intraoral shear forces originating from the muscles or tongue and the salivary flow can condition the SF-biofilm characteristics [47].…”

Biomaterial‐based possibilities for managing peri‐implantitis

“…Indeed rough surfaces display irregular topography, which protect bacteria against shear forces during their initial reversible binding. Many previous works have reported a high positive correlation between surface roughness and bacterial adhesion . Quantitative observation by CFU/mL showed a clear and direct proportional growth of Streptococcus mutans according to the increased roughness values .…”

3D Printing and Digital Processing Techniques in Dentistry: A Review of Literature

“…The progress of precision medicine indicates that similar progress has been made in the field of oral orthodontics, and will gradually be applied to realize personalized and customized treatment methods and improve treatment efficiency . The objective of previous research was to provide a context for the development of computer technology and biomedical science.…”