Development and viability of biofilms grown on experimental abutments mimicking dental implants: An in vivo model

Cortés-Acha, Berta; Figueiredo, Rui; Blanc, Vanessa; Soler-Ollé, Agnès; León, Rubén; Valmaseda‐Castellón, Eduard

doi:10.4317/medoral.22868

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, a removable in vivo abutments was developed that mimicked dental implants. 24 To address in vitro and in vivo problems, a novel human plasma biofilm model was developed for studding the impact of probiotics on pathogens that mimicked a biofilm-challenged human wound milieu. 25…”

Section: Probiotics Fight Against Biofilm Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>The Battle of Probiotics and Their Derivatives Against Biofilms</p>

Barzegari¹,

Kheyrolahzadeh²,

Khatibi³

et al. 2020

IDR

175

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biofilm-related infections have been a major clinical problem and include chronic infections, device-related infections and malfunction of medical devices. Since biofilms are not fully available for the human immune system and antibiotics, they are difficult to eradicate and control; therefore, imposing a global threat to human health. There have been avenues to tackle biofilms largely based on the disruption of their adhesion and maturation. Nowadays, the use of probiotics and their derivatives has gained a growing interest in battling against pathogenic biofilms. In the present review, we have a close look at probiotics with the ultimate objective of inhibiting biofilm formation and maturation. Overall, insights into the mechanisms by which probiotics and their derivatives can be used in the management of biofilm infections would be warranted.

show abstract

Section: Probiotics Fight Against Biofilm Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

<p>The Battle of Probiotics and Their Derivatives Against Biofilms</p>

Barzegari¹,

Kheyrolahzadeh²,

Khatibi³

et al. 2020

IDR

175

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dental implants are generally made of titanium or zirconium. Areas of these dental abutments accessible to the oral microbiota are globally covered within a short time period with extensive biofilms after the lack of oral hygiene [ 131 , 132 ]. This can lead to inflammatory lesions that may develop into peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis [ 20 , 133 ].…”

Section: Bioadhesion In the Oral Cavitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioadhesion in the oral cavity and approaches for biofilm management by surface modifications

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background All soft and solid surface structures in the oral cavity are covered by the acquired pellicle followed by bacterial colonization. This applies for natural structures as well as for restorative or prosthetic materials; the adherent bacterial biofilm is associated among others with the development of caries, periodontal diseases, peri-implantitis, or denture-associated stomatitis. Accordingly, there is a considerable demand for novel materials and coatings that limit and modulate bacterial attachment and/or propagation of microorganisms. Objectives and findings The present paper depicts the current knowledge on the impact of different physicochemical surface characteristics on bioadsorption in the oral cavity. Furthermore, it was carved out which strategies were developed in dental research and general surface science to inhibit bacterial colonization and to delay biofilm formation by low-fouling or “easy-to-clean” surfaces. These include the modulation of physicochemical properties such as periodic topographies, roughness, surface free energy, or hardness. In recent years, a large emphasis was laid on micro- and nanostructured surfaces and on liquid repellent superhydrophic as well as superhydrophilic interfaces. Materials incorporating mobile or bound nanoparticles promoting bacteriostatic or bacteriotoxic properties were also used. Recently, chemically textured interfaces gained increasing interest and could represent promising solutions for innovative antibioadhesion interfaces. Due to the unique conditions in the oral cavity, mainly in vivo or in situ studies were considered in the review. Conclusion Despite many promising approaches for modulation of biofilm formation in the oral cavity, the ubiquitous phenomenon of bioadsorption and adhesion pellicle formation in the challenging oral milieu masks surface properties and therewith hampers low-fouling strategies. Clinical relevance Improved dental materials and surface coatings with easy-to-clean properties have the potential to improve oral health, but extensive and systematic research is required in this field to develop biocompatible and effective substances.

show abstract

“…CHX is a commonly used topical agent for control and prevention of biofilm formation owing to its high substantivity, bactericidal activity and broad spectrum of action ( 9 ). However, owing to the implants’ macrostructure and surface characteristics, the biofilm content on an implant surface can be quite different from that of natural tooth surface ( 10 , 11 ). The implant surface has been shown to favor the presence of pathological bacteria even in the absence of peri-implant disease ( 10 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does chlorhexidine improve outcomes in non-surgical management of peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis?: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Liu¹,

Limiñana-Cañal²,

Yu³

2020

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background With greater number of implants being placed in clinical practice, incidence of peri-implant diseases are on the rise. It is not known whether chlorhexidine (CHX) improves outcomes in the management of peri-implant diseases. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the role of CHX in improving outcomes with non-surgical management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Material and Methods An electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases up to 1st August 2019 was carried out to search for studies evaluating the efficacy of CHX for non-surgical management of peri-implant diseases. Results Seven studies were included. Four studies evaluated the role of CHX in peri-implant mucositis and three in peri-implantitis. Oral prophylaxis with mechanical cleansing of implant surface prior to CHX use was carried out in all seven studies. Meta-analysis indicated that use of CHX did not improve probing depths in peri-implant mucositis (SMD= 0.11; 95% CI: -0.16 to 0.38; p =0.42, I2= 0%). Similarly, CHX did not significantly reduce probing depths in patients with peri-implantitis (MD= 1.57; 95% CI: -0.88 to 4.0; p =0.21, I2= 98%). Results on the efficacy of CHX in reducing BOP in peri-implantitis are conflicting. Conclusions Results of our study indicate that adjunctive therapy with CHX may not improve outcomes with non-surgical management of peri-implant mucositis. Conclusions with regards to its role in non-surgical management of peri-implantitis cannot be drawn. There is a need for more homogenous RCTs with large sample size to define the role of CHX in non-surgical management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Key words: Peri-implant disease, disinfection, dental implants, oral hygiene, chlorhexidine.

show abstract

Development and viability of biofilms grown on experimental abutments mimicking dental implants: An in vivo model

Cited by 10 publications

References 29 publications

<p>The Battle of Probiotics and Their Derivatives Against Biofilms</p>

<p>The Battle of Probiotics and Their Derivatives Against Biofilms</p>

Bioadhesion in the oral cavity and approaches for biofilm management by surface modifications

Does chlorhexidine improve outcomes in non-surgical management of peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis?: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About