How Porphyromonas gingivalis Navigate the Map: The Effect of Surface Topography on the Adhesion of Porphyromonas gingivalis on Biomaterials

Ardhani, Retno; Diana, Rasda; Pidhatika, Bidhari

doi:10.3390/ma15144988

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 87 publications

(119 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Surface features are also involved in the optimization of SI–bone surface interactions. A higher number of the implants included in this revision were porous (rough) on the bony face to promote osteointegration, and smooth (polish) on the soft tissue face to prevent biofilm colonization [ 13 , 34 , 66 ]. Modern manufacturing and new materials resistance allowed to reduce the thickness of the framework up to 0.7- or 0.8-mm [ 41 , 42 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review

Anitua,

Eguia,

Staudigl

et al. 2024

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study was to assess implant survival and complications rate of modern subperiosteal implants (CAD designed and additively manufactured). Methods A systematic review was conducted using three electronic databases; Medline (Pubmed), Cochrane library, and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: “In patients with bone atrophy (P), do additively manufactured subperiosteal implants (I), compared to subperiosteal implants manufactured following traditional approaches (c), present satisfactory implant survival and complication rates (O)? The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023424211). Included articles quality was assessed using the “NIH quality assessment tools”. Results Thirteen articles were finally selected (5 cohort studies and 8 case series), including 227 patients (121 female / 106 male; weighted mean age 62.4 years) and 227 implants. After a weighted mean follow-up time of 21.4 months, 97.8% of implants were in function (5 failures reported), 58 implants (25.6%) presented partial exposure, 12 patients (5.3%) suffered soft tissue or persistent infection. Fracture of the interim prosthesis was reported in 8 of the155 patients (5.2%) in which the use of a provisional prosthesis was reported. A great heterogeneity was found in terms of study design and methodological aspects. For this reason, a quantitative analysis followed by meta-analysis was not possible. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, modern additively manufactured subperiosteal implants presented a good survival in the short-time, but a noticeable number of soft-tissue related complications were reported. Further studies are needed to assess the clinical behavior in the medium- and long-term. Graphical Abstract

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review

Anitua,

Eguia,

Staudigl

et al. 2024

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because it does not consume drugs, physical modification of the surface allows for more long-term effectiveness, less adverse effects on surrounding tissues, and does not need to worry about causing drug resistance of bacteria, so it is considered to be a more promising approach than chemical modification ( Wu et al, 2018 ). Surface topography, an important parameter of the physical properties of the surface, includes surface roughness as well as profile shape ( Ardhani et al, 2022 ). The effects of implant surface roughness and microscopic profile shape on bacterial adhesion and activity have been extensively studied.…”

Section: Surface Topographymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is well known that plaque colonized on the implant is the initial factor of peri-implantitis and that microorganisms have a significant role in the occurrence and progression of peri-implantitis through formation of biofilm. After the implant surface is exposed to the oral environment, bacteria begin to adhere and colonize to the conditional film formed by salivary components on the surface of the implant and form a biofilm ( Chen et al, 2021 ; Ardhani et al, 2022 ). The maturation of the biofilm undergoes the following phases: (1) cells reversibly attach to the surface; (2) extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) secreted by cells promote the irreversible attachment to the surface; (3) cells that attach to the surface replicate and form microcolonies of tens to hundreds of micrometers; (4) with the replication of cells and the accumulation of EPS, mature biofilms with three-dimensional structures are formed; (5) some cells detach from the biofilm and disperse into the surrounding liquid environment, absorbing on the surface and generating new biofilm ( Renner and Weibel, 2011 ) ( Figure 1A ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of strategies to improve the antibacterial property of dental implants

Zhai,

Tian,

Shi

et al. 2023

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing number of peri-implant diseases and the unsatisfactory results of conventional treatment are causing great concern to patients and medical staff. The effective removal of plaque which is one of the key causes of peri-implant disease from the surface of implants has become one of the main problems to be solved urgently in the field of peri-implant disease prevention and treatment. In recent years, with the advancement of materials science and pharmacology, a lot of research has been conducted to enhance the implant antimicrobial properties, including the addition of antimicrobial coatings on the implant surface, the adjustment of implant surface topography, and the development of new implant materials, and significant progress has been made in various aspects. Antimicrobial materials have shown promising applications in the prevention of peri-implant diseases, but meanwhile, there are some shortcomings, which leads to the lack of clinical widespread use of antimicrobial materials. This paper summarizes the research on antimicrobial materials applied to implants in recent years and presents an outlook on the future development.

show abstract

“…The clinically acceptable surface roughness for dental prostheses is R a = 0.2 µm, where no significant biofilm formation was observed below this critical value. However, the biofilm formation is shown to accelerate when the surface roughness exceeds the R a threshold (0.2 µm) [29,131]. The surface roughness provides protection from external shear forces and presents a larger surface area to promote bacterial attachment [101].…”

Section: The Importance Of Surface Topographymentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface Modifications of High-Performance Polymer Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) to Improve Its Biological Performance in Dentistry

Pidhatika

Widyaya²,

Nalam

et al. 2022

Polymers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This comprehensive review focuses on polyetheretherketone (PEEK), a synthetic thermoplastic polymer, for applications in dentistry. As a high-performance polymer, PEEK is intrinsically robust yet biocompatible, making it an ideal substitute for titanium—the current gold standard in dentistry. PEEK, however, is also inert due to its low surface energy and brings challenges when employed in dentistry. Inert PEEK often falls short of achieving a few critical requirements of clinical dental materials, such as adhesiveness, osseoconductivity, antibacterial properties, and resistance to tribocorrosion. This study aims to review these properties and explore the various surface modification strategies that enhance the performance of PEEK. Literatures searches were conducted on Google Scholar, Research Gate, and PubMed databases using PEEK, polyetheretherketone, osseointegration of PEEK, PEEK in dentistry, tribology of PEEK, surface modifications, dental applications, bonding strength, surface topography, adhesive in dentistry, and dental implant as keywords. Literature on the topics of surface modification to increase adhesiveness, tribology, and osseointegration of PEEK were included in the review. The unavailability of full texts was considered when excluding literature. Surface modifications via chemical strategies (such as sulfonation, plasma treatment, UV treatment, surface coating, surface polymerization, etc.) and/or physical approaches (such as sandblasting, laser treatment, accelerated neutral atom beam, layer-by-layer assembly, particle leaching, etc.) employed in the literature are summarized and compared. Further, approaches such as the incorporation of bioactive materials, e.g., osteogenic agents, antibacterial agents, etc., to enhance the abovementioned desired properties are explored. This review presents surface modification as a critical and essential approach to enhance the biological performance of PEEK in dentistry by retaining its mechanical robustness.

show abstract

How Porphyromonas gingivalis Navigate the Map: The Effect of Surface Topography on the Adhesion of Porphyromonas gingivalis on Biomaterials

Cited by 4 publications

References 87 publications

Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review

Clinical performance of additively manufactured subperiosteal implants: a systematic review

Overview of strategies to improve the antibacterial property of dental implants

Surface Modifications of High-Performance Polymer Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) to Improve Its Biological Performance in Dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About