Fig. 4. Relative fluorescence intensities (rfi) of S. epidermidis (a) and S. sanguinis (b) on titanium and ceramic implant surfaces with different grades of roughness and hydrophobicity (means and standard deviations)
Fig. 4. Relative fluorescence intensities (rfi) of S. epidermidis (a) and S. sanguinis (b) on titanium and ceramic implant surfaces with different grades of roughness and hydrop...
Fig. 3. Relative fluorescence intensities (rfi) of S. epidermidis (a) and S. sanguinis (b) on titanium and ceramic implant surfaces with different grades of roughness (means and standard deviations)
Fig. 3. Relative fluorescence intensities (rfi) of S. epidermidis (a) and S. sanguinis (b) on titanium and ceramic implant surfaces with different grades of roughness (means and standard deviation...
tanium (TiSMOOTH); scan sizes are 30 μm in a and 1 μm in b
Fig. 2. Comparison of AFM surface profiles of rough ceramic (CeROUGH), smooth ceramic (CeSMOOTH), rough titanium (TiROUGH), and smooth titanium (TiSMOOTH); scan sizes are 30 μm in a and 1 μm in b
Fig. 1. AFM images for 30 μm × 30 μm (a–d) and 3 μm × 3 μm scan areas (e–h) of rough ceramic (a, e), smooth ceramic (b, f), rough titanium (c, g), and smooth titanium (d, h)
Fig. 1. AFM images for 30 μm × 30 μm (a–d) and 3 μm × 3 μm scan areas (e–h) of rough ceramic (a, e), smooth ceramic (b, f), rough titanium (c, g), and smooth titanium (d, h)
NoneTable 1 Arithmetic average of surface roughness R
a
(means and standard deviations [μm]) and wettability (means and standard deviations [°]) of the ten tested material
Wassmann, T., Kreis, S., Behr, M. et al. The influence of surface texture and wettability on initial bacterial adhesion on titanium and zirconium oxide dental implants.
Int J Implant Dent 3, 32 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0093-3
Download citation
Received: 07 March 2017
Accepted: 28 June 2017
Published: 17 July 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0...
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were...
Ethical approval was not required.
The authors Torsten Wassmann, Stefan Kreis, Michael Behr, and Ralf Buergers declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Present address: Department of Prosthodontics, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany
Torsten Wassmann & Ralf Buergers
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Regensburg University Medical Centre, Regensburg, Germany
Stefan Kreis, Michael Behr & Ralf Buergers
You can also search for this author in
PubMed Google Schola...
The great support of Juri Allerdings and the skilled technical assistance of Gerlinde Held and Marlene Rosendahl are gratefully acknowledged.
The study has been funded solely by the institutions of the authors.
Drake DR, Paul J, Keller JC. Primary bacterial adhesion of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14:226–32.
Lim YJ, Oshida Y. Initial contact angle measurements on variously treated dental/medical titanium materials. Biomed Mater Eng. 2001;11:325–41.
Steinberg D, Sela MN, Klinger A, Kohavi D. Adhesion of periodontal bacteria to titanium and titanium alloy powders. Clin Oral ...
Quirynen M, De Soete M, van Steenberghe D. Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13:1–19.
Weerkamp AH, Uyen HM, Busscher HJ. Effect of zeta potential and surface energy on bacterial adhesion to uncoated and saliva-coated human enamel and dentin. J Dent Res. 1988;67:1483–7.
Barbour ME, O’Sullivan DJ, Jenkinson HF, Jagger DC. The effects...
Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D. The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: short-term observations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11:169–78.
Hannig M. Transmission electron microscopy of early plaque formation on dental materials in vivo. Eur J Oral Sci. 1999;107:55–64.
Quirynen M, van der Mei HC, ...
An YH, Friedman RJ. Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;43:338–48.
Palmquist A, Omar OM, Esposito M, Lausmaa J, Thomsen P. Titanium oral implants: surface characteristics, interface biology and clinical outcome. J R Soc Interface. 2010;7:515–27.
Hannig C, Hannig M. The oral cavity—a key system to understand substratum-depende...
Poon CY, Bhushan B. Comparison of surface roughness measurements by stylus profiler, AFM and non-contact profiler. Wear. 1995;190:76–88.
Hahnel S, Rosentritt M, Handel G, Bürgers R. Surface characterization of dental ceramics and initial streptococcal adhesion in vitro. Dent Mater. 2009;25:969–75.
Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Soft tissue response to plaque formation at different im...
Within the limitations of an in vitro study, our results indicate that surface roughness as well as wettability may influence the adhesion properties of bacteria on implant surfaces. Furthermore, the predominant factor for adhesion depends on the bacterial species itself. Zirconia implant material did not show any lower bacterial colonization potential than titanium. The influence of substratum ma...
In vivo biofilm models with multi-species biofilms offer the opportunity to evaluate materials in simulated clinical conditions including composite plaque, salivary pellicle, and removal forces [18]. Although the understanding of oral biofilms and the influence of surface characteristics on microbial accumulation has increased, significant gaps in the fundamental knowledge about the formation and ...
Besides surface roughness and morphology, the hydrophobicity and surface free energy (SFE) of an implant surface are known to influence bacterial adhesion [42, 43]. Physico-chemical interactions (non-specific) are composed of van der Waals forces, electrostatic interactions, and acid-based interactions, which in turn define the surface free energy of a substratum [44]. The surface free energy can ...
In the present study, sandblasting (with 50 or 250 μm aluminum trioxide) resulted in significant increases of R
a
on titanium and ceramic surfaces. These R
a
values were higher than those for commercially available implant abutments (observed to range from 0.10 to 0.30 μm) [35]. According to the classification by Albrektsson and Wennerberg, smooth ceramic and titanium materials and t...
Besides, the surface material itself and its chemical composition, surface roughness, and hydrophobicity have a crucial influence on the accumulation of microorganisms. In most previous studies on bacterial adhesion on titanium and ceramic surfaces, the quantity of bacterial adhesion showed a direct positive correlation with surface roughness [4, 10, 18, 24,25,26]. In case of interacting surface r...
The problems involved in osseous healing of dental implants appear to be largely solved. Biofilm formation on exposed implant and abutment surfaces, however, is a fortiori crucial for the long-term therapeutic success of an implant, because biofilms are the most frequent cause of peri-implantitis and implant loss [3,4,5,6,7]. Consequently, new implant surface modifications with reduced properties ...
In general, significantly more S. sanguinis adhered to ceramic surfaces than to titanium surfaces (p  0.05 for all comparisons). On ceramic surfaces (smooth ceramic 4668 ± 1562 rfu; medium ceramic 5590 ± 1493 rfu, rough ceramic 6875 ± 428 rfu), higher surface roughness led to increased S. sanguinis adhesion (p  0.05 for all comparisons). A comparison of rough and smooth s...
The median surface roughness values (R
a
) of each material group (n = 10) tested are shown in Table 1. The differences in R
a
between rough, medium, and smooth specimens were statistically significant for ceramic as well as for titanium (p 
Ten specimens of each material group tested were investigated. As control references, we used the fluorescence values of pure phosphate-buffered saline (0-control), buffer and CytoX-Violet (dye-control), and pure bacterial solution (bacteria-control).
All calculations and graphic displays were done with SPSS 16.0 for Windows (SPSS Corporation, Chicago, IL, USA). Means and standard deviations for ...
Three-dimensional images of rough and smooth implant surfaces were obtained by means of atomic force microscopy (AFM) using the tapping mode scan of an AFM VEECO machine (Plainview, USA); this method was also used to determine the surface topography. We scanned several randomly selected areas measuring either 3 μm × 3 μm or 30 μm × 30 μm for each of the test groups and sterilized...
In this study, we assessed two different implant materials in the form of round specimens (each measuring 5.0 mm in diameter and 1.0 mm in thickness, see Table 1). Half of the specimens were made of grade 1 pure titanium (Mechanische Werkstatt Biologie, University of Regensburg, Germany) and the other half of zirconia ceramic (IPS e.max ZirCAD; Ivoclar Vivadent, Ellwangen, Germany). The grade o...
The aim of the present in vitro study was to investigate bacterial adhesion (by means of the test species Streptococcus sanguinis and Staphylococcus epidermidis) on ten different titanium and zirconia implant surfaces. Surface texture and wettability were modified in well-defined patterns to correlate these surface properties with the amount of initially adhering bacteria and to define the predomi...
Dental implants are one of the most frequently used treatment options for the replacement of missing teeth. The oral microflora and its dynamic interactions with the implant substrata seem to crucially influence the long-term success or failure of dental implants [1,2,3,4,5,6]. As soon as implant surfaces are exposed to the human oral cavity, they are immediately colonized by microorganisms [7, 8]...
This study aims to investigate bacterial adhesion on different titanium and ceramic implant surfaces, to correlate these findings with surface roughness and surface hydrophobicity, and to define the predominant factor for bacterial adhesion for each material.
Zirconia and titanium specimens with different surface textures and wettability (5.0Â mm in diameter, 1.0Â mm in height) were prepared. Sur...
Fig. 4. Relative fluorescence intensities (rfi) of S. epidermidis (a) and S. sanguinis (b) on titanium and ceramic implant surfaces with different grades of roughness and hydrophobicity (means and standard deviations)
Fig. 4. Relative fluorescence intensities (rfi) of S. epidermidis (a) and S. sanguinis (b) on titanium and ceramic implant surfaces with different grades of roughness and hydrop...
Fig. 3. Relative fluorescence intensities (rfi) of S. epidermidis (a) and S. sanguinis (b) on titanium and ceramic implant surfaces with different grades of roughness (means and standard deviations)
Fig. 3. Relative fluorescence intensities (rfi) of S. epidermidis (a) and S. sanguinis (b) on titanium and ceramic implant surfaces with different grades of roughness (means and standard deviation...
GH), and smooth titanium (TiSMOOTH); scan sizes are 30 μm in a and 1 μm in b
Fig. 2. Comparison of AFM surface profiles of rough ceramic (CeROUGH), smooth ceramic (CeSMOOTH), rough titanium (TiROUGH), and smooth titanium (TiSMOOTH); scan sizes are 30 μm in a and 1 μm in b
Fig. 1. AFM images for 30 μm × 30 μm (a–d) and 3 μm × 3 μm scan areas (e–h) of rough ceramic (a, e), smooth ceramic (b, f), rough titanium (c, g), and smooth titanium (d, h)
Fig. 1. AFM images for 30 μm × 30 μm (a–d) and 3 μm × 3 μm scan areas (e–h) of rough ceramic (a, e), smooth ceramic (b, f), rough titanium (c, g), and smooth titanium (d, h)
NoneTable 1 Arithmetic average of surface roughness R
a
(means and standard deviations [μm]) and wettability (means and standard deviations [°]) of the ten tested material
Wassmann, T., Kreis, S., Behr, M. et al. The influence of surface texture and wettability on initial bacterial adhesion on titanium and zirconium oxide dental implants.
Int J Implant Dent 3, 32 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0093-3
Download citation
Received: 07 March 2017
Accepted: 28 June 2017
Published: 17 July 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-017-0...
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were...
Ethical approval was not required.
The authors Torsten Wassmann, Stefan Kreis, Michael Behr, and Ralf Buergers declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Present address: Department of Prosthodontics, University Medical Center Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, 37075, Goettingen, Germany
Torsten Wassmann & Ralf Buergers
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Regensburg University Medical Centre, Regensburg, Germany
Stefan Kreis, Michael Behr & Ralf Buergers
You can also search for this author in
PubMed Google Schola...
The great support of Juri Allerdings and the skilled technical assistance of Gerlinde Held and Marlene Rosendahl are gratefully acknowledged.
The study has been funded solely by the institutions of the authors.
Drake DR, Paul J, Keller JC. Primary bacterial adhesion of implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14:226–32.
Lim YJ, Oshida Y. Initial contact angle measurements on variously treated dental/medical titanium materials. Biomed Mater Eng. 2001;11:325–41.
Steinberg D, Sela MN, Klinger A, Kohavi D. Adhesion of periodontal bacteria to titanium and titanium alloy powders. Clin Oral ...
Quirynen M, De Soete M, van Steenberghe D. Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13:1–19.
Weerkamp AH, Uyen HM, Busscher HJ. Effect of zeta potential and surface energy on bacterial adhesion to uncoated and saliva-coated human enamel and dentin. J Dent Res. 1988;67:1483–7.
Barbour ME, O’Sullivan DJ, Jenkinson HF, Jagger DC. The effects...
Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D. The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: short-term observations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996;11:169–78.
Hannig M. Transmission electron microscopy of early plaque formation on dental materials in vivo. Eur J Oral Sci. 1999;107:55–64.
Quirynen M, van der Mei HC, ...
An YH, Friedman RJ. Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res. 1998;43:338–48.
Palmquist A, Omar OM, Esposito M, Lausmaa J, Thomsen P. Titanium oral implants: surface characteristics, interface biology and clinical outcome. J R Soc Interface. 2010;7:515–27.
Hannig C, Hannig M. The oral cavity—a key system to understand substratum-depende...
Poon CY, Bhushan B. Comparison of surface roughness measurements by stylus profiler, AFM and non-contact profiler. Wear. 1995;190:76–88.Hahnel S, Rosentritt M, Handel G, Bürgers R. Surface characterization of dental ceramics and initial streptococcal adhesion in vitro. Dent Mater. 2009;25:969–75.Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Soft tissue response to plaque formation at different implan...
Poon CY, Bhushan B. Comparison of surface roughness measurements by stylus profiler, AFM and non-contact profiler. Wear. 1995;190:76–88.
Hahnel S, Rosentritt M, Handel G, Bürgers R. Surface characterization of dental ceramics and initial streptococcal adhesion in vitro. Dent Mater. 2009;25:969–75.
Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Soft tissue response to plaque formation at different im...
Within the limitations of an in vitro study, our results indicate that surface roughness as well as wettability may influence the adhesion properties of bacteria on implant surfaces. Furthermore, the predominant factor for adhesion depends on the bacterial species itself. Zirconia implant material did not show any lower bacterial colonization potential than titanium. The influence of substratum ma...
In vivo biofilm models with multi-species biofilms offer the opportunity to evaluate materials in simulated clinical conditions including composite plaque, salivary pellicle, and removal forces [18]. Although the understanding of oral biofilms and the influence of surface characteristics on microbial accumulation has increased, significant gaps in the fundamental knowledge about the formation and ...
Besides surface roughness and morphology, the hydrophobicity and surface free energy (SFE) of an implant surface are known to influence bacterial adhesion [42, 43]. Physico-chemical interactions (non-specific) are composed of van der Waals forces, electrostatic interactions, and acid-based interactions, which in turn define the surface free energy of a substratum [44]. The surface free energy can ...
In the present study, sandblasting (with 50 or 250 μm aluminum trioxide) resulted in significant increases of R
a
on titanium and ceramic surfaces. These R
a
values were higher than those for commercially available implant abutments (observed to range from 0.10 to 0.30 μm) [35]. According to the classification by Albrektsson and Wennerberg, smooth ceramic and titanium materials and t...
Besides, the surface material itself and its chemical composition, surface roughness, and hydrophobicity have a crucial influence on the accumulation of microorganisms. In most previous studies on bacterial adhesion on titanium and ceramic surfaces, the quantity of bacterial adhesion showed a direct positive correlation with surface roughness [4, 10, 18, 24,25,26]. In case of interacting surface r...
The problems involved in osseous healing of dental implants appear to be largely solved. Biofilm formation on exposed implant and abutment surfaces, however, is a fortiori crucial for the long-term therapeutic success of an implant, because biofilms are the most frequent cause of peri-implantitis and implant loss [3,4,5,6,7]. Consequently, new implant surface modifications with reduced properties ...
In general, significantly more S. sanguinis adhered to ceramic surfaces than to titanium surfaces (p  0.05 for all comparisons). On ceramic surfaces (smooth ceramic 4668 ± 1562 rfu; medium ceramic 5590 ± 1493 rfu, rough ceramic 6875 ± 428 rfu), higher surface roughness led to increased S. sanguinis adhesion (p  0.05 for all comparisons). A comparison of rough and smooth s...
The median surface roughness values (R
a
) of each material group (n = 10) tested are shown in Table 1. The differences in R
a
between rough, medium, and smooth specimens were statistically significant for ceramic as well as for titanium (p 
Ten specimens of each material group tested were investigated. As control references, we used the fluorescence values of pure phosphate-buffered saline (0-control), buffer and CytoX-Violet (dye-control), and pure bacterial solution (bacteria-control).
All calculations and graphic displays were done with SPSS 16.0 for Windows (SPSS Corporation, Chicago, IL, USA). Means and standard deviations for ...
Three-dimensional images of rough and smooth implant surfaces were obtained by means of atomic force microscopy (AFM) using the tapping mode scan of an AFM VEECO machine (Plainview, USA); this method was also used to determine the surface topography. We scanned several randomly selected areas measuring either 3 μm × 3 μm or 30 μm × 30 μm for each of the test groups and sterilized...
In this study, we assessed two different implant materials in the form of round specimens (each measuring 5.0 mm in diameter and 1.0 mm in thickness, see Table 1). Half of the specimens were made of grade 1 pure titanium (Mechanische Werkstatt Biologie, University of Regensburg, Germany) and the other half of zirconia ceramic (IPS e.max ZirCAD; Ivoclar Vivadent, Ellwangen, Germany). The grade o...
The aim of the present in vitro study was to investigate bacterial adhesion (by means of the test species Streptococcus sanguinis and Staphylococcus epidermidis) on ten different titanium and zirconia implant surfaces. Surface texture and wettability were modified in well-defined patterns to correlate these surface properties with the amount of initially adhering bacteria and to define the predomi...
Dental implants are one of the most frequently used treatment options for the replacement of missing teeth. The oral microflora and its dynamic interactions with the implant substrata seem to crucially influence the long-term success or failure of dental implants [1,2,3,4,5,6]. As soon as implant surfaces are exposed to the human oral cavity, they are immediately colonized by microorganisms [7, 8]...
This study aims to investigate bacterial adhesion on different titanium and ceramic implant surfaces, to correlate these findings with surface roughness and surface hydrophobicity, and to define the predominant factor for bacterial adhesion for each material.
Zirconia and titanium specimens with different surface textures and wettability (5.0Â mm in diameter, 1.0Â mm in height) were prepared. Sur...