Cargando…

The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation

Effective biofilm removal from surfaces in the mouth is a clinical challenge. Cavitation bubbles generated around a dental ultrasonic scaler are being investigated as a method to remove biofilms effectively. It is not known how parameters such as surface roughness and instrument distance from biofil...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vyas, N., Sammons, R. L., Kuehne, S. A., Johansson, C., Stenport, V., Wang, Q. X., Walmsley, A. D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7392287/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32730291
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236428
_version_ 1783564816955211776
author Vyas, N.
Sammons, R. L.
Kuehne, S. A.
Johansson, C.
Stenport, V.
Wang, Q. X.
Walmsley, A. D.
author_facet Vyas, N.
Sammons, R. L.
Kuehne, S. A.
Johansson, C.
Stenport, V.
Wang, Q. X.
Walmsley, A. D.
author_sort Vyas, N.
collection PubMed
description Effective biofilm removal from surfaces in the mouth is a clinical challenge. Cavitation bubbles generated around a dental ultrasonic scaler are being investigated as a method to remove biofilms effectively. It is not known how parameters such as surface roughness and instrument distance from biofilm affect the removal. We grew Strepotococcus sanguinis biofilms on coverslips and titanium discs with varying surface roughness (between 0.02–3.15 μm). Experimental studies were carried out for the biofilm removal using high speed imaging and image analysis to calculate the area of biofilm removed at varying ultrasonic scaler standoff distances from the biofilm. We found that surface roughness up to 2 μm does not adversely affect biofilm removal but a surface roughness of 3 μm caused less biofilm removal. The standoff distance also has different effects depending on the surface roughness but overall a distance of 1 mm is just as effective as a distance of 0.5 mm. The results show significant biofilm removal due to an ultrasonic scaler tip operating for only 2s versus 15-60s in previous studies. The technique developed for high speed imaging and image analysis of biofilm removal can be used to investigate physical biofilm disruption from biomaterial surfaces in other fields.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7392287
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73922872020-08-05 The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation Vyas, N. Sammons, R. L. Kuehne, S. A. Johansson, C. Stenport, V. Wang, Q. X. Walmsley, A. D. PLoS One Research Article Effective biofilm removal from surfaces in the mouth is a clinical challenge. Cavitation bubbles generated around a dental ultrasonic scaler are being investigated as a method to remove biofilms effectively. It is not known how parameters such as surface roughness and instrument distance from biofilm affect the removal. We grew Strepotococcus sanguinis biofilms on coverslips and titanium discs with varying surface roughness (between 0.02–3.15 μm). Experimental studies were carried out for the biofilm removal using high speed imaging and image analysis to calculate the area of biofilm removed at varying ultrasonic scaler standoff distances from the biofilm. We found that surface roughness up to 2 μm does not adversely affect biofilm removal but a surface roughness of 3 μm caused less biofilm removal. The standoff distance also has different effects depending on the surface roughness but overall a distance of 1 mm is just as effective as a distance of 0.5 mm. The results show significant biofilm removal due to an ultrasonic scaler tip operating for only 2s versus 15-60s in previous studies. The technique developed for high speed imaging and image analysis of biofilm removal can be used to investigate physical biofilm disruption from biomaterial surfaces in other fields. Public Library of Science 2020-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7392287/ /pubmed/32730291 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236428 Text en © 2020 Vyas et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Vyas, N.
Sammons, R. L.
Kuehne, S. A.
Johansson, C.
Stenport, V.
Wang, Q. X.
Walmsley, A. D.
The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation
title The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation
title_full The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation
title_fullStr The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation
title_full_unstemmed The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation
title_short The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation
title_sort effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7392287/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32730291
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236428
work_keys_str_mv AT vyasn theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT sammonsrl theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT kuehnesa theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT johanssonc theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT stenportv theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT wangqx theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT walmsleyad theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT vyasn effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT sammonsrl effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT kuehnesa effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT johanssonc effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT stenportv effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT wangqx effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT walmsleyad effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation