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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |