Cargando…
Early Biofilm Formation on Rough and Smooth Titanium Specimens: a Systematic Review of Clinical Studies
OBJECTIVES: There is a concern whether the enhancement on implant surface roughness is responsible for higher biofilm formation, which acts as an aetiological factor for peri-implant diseases. The aim of the present systematic review was to answer the following question: “Are rough surfaces more sus...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Stilus Optimus
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8807145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35222868 http://dx.doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2021.12401 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVES: There is a concern whether the enhancement on implant surface roughness is responsible for higher biofilm formation, which acts as an aetiological factor for peri-implant diseases. The aim of the present systematic review was to answer the following question: “Are rough surfaces more susceptible to early biofilm formation when compared to smoother surfaces on titanium specimens?”. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The research was performed on PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, up to August 2021. Eligibility criteria included studies that analysed human biofilm formation on titanium specimens with distinct surface roughness (smooth vs minimally, moderate, or rough) over the experimental times of 1 or 3 days. Roughness average (Ra) and biofilm analysis parameters were extracted from selected articles. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies. RESULTS: Of 5286 papers, 5 were included and analysed. Smooth titanium surfaces included machined and anodized titanium/Ti-6Al-4V; machined and acid etched TiZr. Minimally, moderately, or rough surfaces comprised titanium and titanium alloys (TiZr, Ti-6Al-4V), that received surface treatments (anodization, acid-etching, blasting, hydroxyapatite-coating). No statistically significant difference on biofilm formation on rough and smooth titanium surfaces was reported by 3 studies, while more contamination on rough titanium surfaces was stated by 2 investigations. An isolated smooth surface has also been associated to higher contamination. Moderate to high quality methodological assessment of studies were identified. CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to assume that rough surfaces are more susceptible to early biofilm formation than smooth titanium surfaces. Additional studies are required to study this multifarious interaction. |
---|