Open Access, Peer-reviewed, Quarterly
pISSN 0301-2875
eISSN 2005-3789
    J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2013 Oct;51(4):245-251. Korean.
    Published online Oct 30, 2013.
    https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2013.51.4.245
    Copyright © 2013 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
    Original Article

    Comparison of biofilm on titanium and zirconia surfaces: in vivo study

    Kyu-Taek Lim, DDS, MSD,1 Ji-Hyun Lee, DDS, MSD,2 Il-Gu Lim, DDS,2 So-Hyun Park, DDS,2 Hyun-Phil Lim, DDS, PhD,3 and Ok-Su Kim, DDS, PhD2
      • 1School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea.
      • 2Department of Periodontics, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea.
      • 3Department of Prosthodontics, Chonnam National University, Gwangju, Korea.
    • Corresponding Author: Ok-Su Kim. Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, 33 Yongbong-ro, Buk-gu, Gwangju, 500-757, Korea. +82 62 530 5640, Email: periodrk@chonnam.ac.kr
    Received July 12, 2013; Revised July 31, 2013; Accepted September 12, 2013.

    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Abstract

    Purpose

    This study was conducted to compare in vivo biofilm formation on titanium surface and zirconia surface.

    Materials and methods

    For biofilm formation on titanium and zirconia in oral cavity, after producing oral appliances using acrylic resin and orthodontic wire tailored to 9 subjects, we made titanium and zirconia specimens (6 mm × 6 mm × 2 mm), fixed them on oral appliances and maintained them in oral cavity of test subjects for 24 and 72 hours. Test subjects who have equipped two pairs of specimens maintained oral hygiene not by using toothpaste but only by tooth brushing. After 24 and 72 hours, we removed and observed specimens through scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

    Results

    Biofilm formation showed large deviation depending on individuals. For formation comparison between titanium and zirconia for 24 hours, zirconia showed less biofilm formation than titanium. Biofilm formation showed large deviation depending on individuals. As for formation comparison between zirconia and titanium, the degree of biofilm formation in zirconia was less than it was in titanium after a lapse of 24 hours. The result of biofilm formation in 72 hours trial show that zirconia has an inclination to formate less biofilm than it was in titanium.

    Conclusion

    Based on the above results, we can conclude that early biofilm formation in oral cavity was influenced by difference of abutment materials.

    Keywords
    Titanium surface; Zirconia surface; Biofilm

    Figures

    Fig. 1
    Experimental appliance model.

    Fig. 2
    Bacterial adhesion on titanium and zirconia Surfaces (magnification ×50). A: 24 hrs titanium surface, B: 24 hrs zirconia surface, C: 72 hrs titanium surface, D: 72 hrs zirconia surface.

    Fig. 3
    Plaque composition (Rod %) attachment to titanium and zirconia surfaces after 24 hrs and 72 hrs (magnification ×10,000, 12 × 10 µm size specimen). A: 24 hrs zirconia, B: 24 hrs titanium, C: 72 hrs zirconia, D: 72 hrs titanium.

    Tables

    Table 1
    Ratio of plaque amount attached to titanium and zirconia surface

    Table 2
    Percentage of rods on biofilm attachment

    References

      1. Jemt T, Laney WR, Harris D, Henry PJ, Krogh PHJ, Pollizi, Zarb GA, Hermann I. Osseointegrated implants for single tooth replacement: a 1-year report from a multi-center prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:29–36.
      1. Heydecke G, Sierraalta M, Razzong ME. Evolution and use of aluminum oxide single tooth implant abutement: A short review and presentation of two cases. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:488–493.
      1. Rasperini G, Magnolione M, Cocconcelli P, Simion M. In vivo early plaque formation on pure titanium and ceramic abutments: a comparative microbiological and SEM analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:357–364.
      1. Johnson RH, Persson GR. A 3-year prospective study of a single-tooth implant-Prosthodontic complication. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:183–189.
      1. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A Review of Dental CAD/CAM: Current Status and Future Perspectives from 20 Years of Experience. Dent Mater J 2009;28:44–56.
      1. Nakamura K, Kanno T, Milleding P, Ortengren U. Zirconia as a dental implant abutment material: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:299–309.
      1. Gomes AL, Montero J. Zirconia implant abutments: a review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16:e50–e55.
      1. Rimondini L, Cerroni L, Carrassi A, Torricelli P. Bacterial colonization of zirconia ceramic surfaces: an in vitro and in vivo study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:793–798.
      1. Scarano A, Piattelli M, Caputi S, Favero GA, Piattelli A. Bacterial adhesion on commercially pure titanium and zirconium oxide disks: an in vivo human study. J Periodontol 2004;75:292–296.
      1. Steinberg D, Sela MN, Klinger A, Kohavi D. Adhesion of periodontal bacteria to titanium, and titanium alloy powders. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:67–72.
      1. 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;11:169–178.
      1. Bollen CM, Papaioanno W, van Eldere J, Schepers E, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:201–211.
    MeSH Terms
    Biofilms*
    Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
    Mouth
    Oral Hygiene
    Orthodontic Wires
    Titanium*
    Tooth
    Toothpastes
    Zirconium
    Metrics
    Share
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 3

    Tables
    slide
    slide

    1 / 2

    PERMALINK