Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine

Korean Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine Society (한국조직공학·재생의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Mg-ion and Ca-ion Implantations on P. gingivalis and F. nucleatum Adhesion

  • Kang, Sun Nyo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeong, Chang Mo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeon, Young Chan (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Byon, Eung-Sun (Materials Processing Division, Korea Institute of Materials Science) ;
  • Jeong, Yong-Soo (Materials Processing Division, Korea Institute of Materials Science) ;
  • Cho, Lee-Ra (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University)
  • Received : 2013.02.22
  • Accepted : 2013.12.24
  • Published : 2014.02.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of ion implantation on Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis) and Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum) bacterial adhesion. Titanium (Ti) discs of 15 mm diameter and 1 mm in thickness (n = 42, 7 per group) were fabricated. Magnesium (Mg) and calcium (Ca) ions were implanted into the Ti surfaces using a plasma-source ion-implantation method. The roughness, chemistry, morphology, and contact angle of the titanium surfaces were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy, Rutherford back-scattering spectroscopy, Auger electron spectroscopy, and contact angle meter. P. gingivalis and F. nucleatum strains were cultured in anaerobic conditions at $37^{\circ}C$ for 72 hours, and all titanium specimens were dipped in the bacterial suspension at $37^{\circ}C$ for 24 hours. Specimens were examined at $1,000{\times}$ magnification using a fluorescence microscope. The number and total area of bacteria in each of 10 separate fields were determined by computer imaging analysis method. The resulting data was analyzed to assess the significance of observed differences based on the method of the surface treatment, ion implantation. The number of P. gingivalis and F. nucleatum attached to the Mg- (927 and 227, respectively) and Caion- implanted (1325 and 231, respectively) surfaces were greater than those attached to the non-implanted surfaces (306 and 98, p < .001). Total area occupied by P. gingivalis adhesion was greater than those of F. nucleatum in the Mgand Ca- ion-implanted surfaces (p < .001). The types of ion and bacteria did not affect the amount of bacterial adhesion. Ion implantation enhanced the adhesions of P. gingivalis and F. nucleatum. Non-specific bonding derived from the electrostatic force affected by positively charged ions might be the predominant factor in bacterial adhesion. The possibility of specific bonding could not be ruled out in the Ca-ion- implanted surface.

Keywords

References

  1. H Zreiqat, CR Howlett, A Zannettino, et al., Mechanisms of magnesium-stimulated adhesion of osteoblastic cells to commonly used orthopaedic implants, J Biomed Mater Res, 62, 175 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.10270
  2. YZ Wan, Y Huang, F He, et al., Effect of Mg ion implantation on calcium phosphate formation on titanium, Surf Coat Tech, 201, 2904 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2006.06.004
  3. B Feng, J Weng, BC Yang, et al., Characterization of titanium surfaces with calcium and phosphate and osteoblast adhesion, Biomaterials, 25, 3421 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.10.044
  4. SN Nayab, FH Jones, I Olsen, Effects of calcium ion implantation on human bone cell interaction with titanium, Biomaterials, 26, 4717 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.11.044
  5. JW Park, YJ Kim, JH Jang, et al., Osteoblast response to magnesium ion-incorporated nanoporous titanium oxide surfaces, Clin Oral Implants Res, 21, 1278 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01944.x
  6. LR Cho, DG Kim, JH Kim, et al., Bone response of Mg ionimplanted clinical implants with the plasma source ion implantation method, Clin Oral Implants Res, 21, 848 (2010).
  7. YT Sul, ES Byon, Y Jeong, Biomechanical measurements of calcium-incorporated oxidized implants in rabbit bone: effect of calcium surface chemistry of a novel implant, Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 6, 101 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2004.tb00032.x
  8. V Frojd, V Franke-Stenport, L Meirelles, et al., Increased bone contact to a calcium-incorporated oxidized commercially pure titanium implant: an in-vivo study in rabbits, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 37, 561 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2008.01.020
  9. V Frojd, A Wennerberg, V Franke Stenport, Importance of Ca(2+) modifications for osseointegration of smooth and moderately rough anodized titanium implants - a removal torque and histological evaluation in rabbit, Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 14, 737 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00315.x
  10. T Albrektsson, Isidor F, Concensus report of session IV. In: Lang NP, Karring T, editors. Proceedings of the 1st European Workshop on Periodontology, London: Quintessence Publishing (1994).
  11. J Lindhe, T Berglundh, I Ericsson, et al., Experimental breakdown of peri-implant and periodontal tissues. A study in the beagle dog, Clin Oral Implants Res, 3, 9 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030102.x
  12. B Klinge, M Hultin, T Berglundh, Peri-implantitis, Dent Clin North Am, 49, 661 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2005.03.007
  13. A Amano, A Sharma, JY Lee, et al., Structural domains of Porphyromonas gingivalis recombinant fimbrillin that mediate binding to salivary proline-rich protein and statherin, Infect Immun, 64, 1631 (1996).
  14. AJ van Winkelhoff, RJ Goene, C Benschop, et al., Early colonization of dental implants by putative periodontal pathogens in partially edentulous patients, Clin Oral Implants Res, 11, 511 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011006511.x
  15. PE Kolenbrander, J London, Adhere today, here tomorrow: oral bacterial adherence, J Bacteriol, 175, 3247 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.175.11.3247-3252.1993
  16. SA Kinder, SC Holt, Localization of the Fusobacterium nucleatum T18 adhesin activity mediating coaggregation with Porphyromonas gingivalis T22, J Bacteriol,175, 840 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.175.3.840-850.1993
  17. A Leonhardt, B Adolfsson, U Lekholm, et al., A longitudinal microbiological study on osseointegrated titanium implants in partially edentulous patients, Clin Oral Implants Res, 4, 113 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040301.x
  18. NJ Pongnarisorn, E Gemmell, AE Tan, et al., Inflammation associated with implants with different surface types, Clin Oral Implants Res, 18, 114 (2007).
  19. YH An, RJ Friedman, Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces, J Biomed Mater Res, 43, 338 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199823)43:3<338::AID-JBM16>3.0.CO;2-B
  20. YL Jeyachandran, SK Narayandass, D Mangalaraj, et al., The effect of surface composition of titanium films on bacterial adhesion, Biomed Mater, 1, L1 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-6041/1/1/L01
  21. ML Kim, CM Jeong, YC Jeon, et al., The effects of Mg-ion implantation and sandblasting on Porphyromonas gingivalis attachment, Clin Oral Implants Res, 23, 245 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02138.x
  22. M Hermansson, The DLVO theory in microbial adhesion, Colloids Surf B, 14, 105 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-7765(99)00029-6
  23. M Yoshinari, Y Oda, T Kato, et al., Influence of surface modifications to titanium on oral bacterial adhesion in vitro, J Biomed Mater Res, 52, 388 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4636(200011)52:2<388::AID-JBM20>3.0.CO;2-E
  24. M Quirynen, HC van der Mei, CM Bollen, et al., An in vivo study of the influence of the surface roughness of implants on the microbiology of supra- and subgingival plaque, J Dent Res, 72, 1304 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345930720090801
  25. SJ Parikh, J Chorover, ATR-FTIR spectroscopy reveals bond formation during bacterial adhesion to iron oxide, Langmuir, 22, 8492 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1021/la061359p
  26. C Hsiao, LD Williams, A recurrent magnesium-binding motif provides a framework for the ribosomal peptidyl transferase center, Nucleic Acids Res, 37, 3134 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp119
  27. B Vu, M Chen, RJ Crawford, et al., Bacterial extracellular polysaccharides involved in biofilm formation, Molecules, 14, 2535 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules14072535
  28. L Mei, HC van der Mei, Y Ren, et al., Poisson analysis of streptococcal bond strengthening on stainless steel with and without a salivary conditioning film, Langmuir, 25, 6227 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1021/la9000494
  29. G Speranza, G Gottardi, C Pederzolli, et al., Role of chemical interactions in bacterial adhesion to polymer surfaces, Biomaterials, 25, 2029 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.08.061
  30. T Ichikawa, T Hanawa, H Ukai, et al., Three-dimensional bone response to commercially pure titanium, hydroxyapatite, and calcium-ion-mixing titanium in rabbits, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 15, 231 (2000).
  31. GM Bruinsma, HC van der Mei, HJ Busscher, Bacterial adhesion to surface hydrophilic and hydrophobic contact lenses, Biomaterials, 22, 3217 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00159-4
  32. NP Boks, HJ Kaper, W Norde, et al., Mobile and immobile adhesion of staphylococcal strains to hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces, J Colloid Interface Sci, 331, 60 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2008.11.025
  33. A Kiejna, T Pabisiak, SW Gao, The energetics and structure of rutile $TiO(_2)$(110), J Phys Condens Matter, 18, 4207 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/18/17/009
  34. C Cardenas, F De Proft, E Chamorro E, et al., Theoretical study of the surface reactivity of alkaline earth oxides: local density of states evaluation of the local softness, J Chem Phys, 128, 034708 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2819239
  35. KH Ko, DG Kim, HS Lee, et al., Gene expression in Ca or Mg implanted titanium surfaces, Tissue Eng Regen Med, 9, 137 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13770-012-0137-y
  36. MC Apella, SC Venegas, LG Rodenas LG, et al., Synthetic hydroxyapatite as a surface model of dental enamel and dentin, J Argen Chem Soc, 97, 109 (2008).
  37. L Badihi Hauslich, MN Sela, D Steinberg, et al., The adhesion of oral bacteria to modified titanium surfaces: role of plasma proteins and electrostatic forces, Clin Oral Implants Res, 24, (Suppl. A100), 49 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02364.x
  38. CD Wu-Yuan, KJ Eganhouse, JC Keller, et al., Oral bacterial attachment to titanium surfaces: a scanning electron microscopy study, J Oral Implantol, 21, 207 (1995).
  39. H Kuula, E Kononen, K Lounatmaa, et al., Attachment of oral gram-negative anaerobic rods to a smooth titanium surface: an electron microscopy study, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 19, 803 (2004).
  40. A Abbott, RP Rutter, RC Berkeley, The influence of ionic strength, pH and a protein layer on the interaction between Streptococcus mutans and glass surfaces, J Gen Microbiol, 129, 439 (1983).
  41. AH Hogt, J Dankert, J Feijen, Adhesion of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus saprophyticus to a hydrophobic biomaterial, J Gen Microbiol, 131, 2485 (1985).

Cited by

  1. Bifunctional galvanics mediated selective toxicity on titanium vol.5, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1039/c7mh00884h
  2. Microbial Biofilm Decontamination on Dental Implant Surfaces: A Mini Review vol.11, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.736186