Bacterial Growth on Titanium vs Zirconia Healing Caps: An In Vitro Study.

Gil Slutzkey, Michael Saminsky, Shifra Levartovsky, Ari Glikman, Shlomo Matalon, Nirit Tagger Green
{"title":"Bacterial Growth on Titanium vs Zirconia Healing Caps: An In Vitro Study.","authors":"Gil Slutzkey, Michael Saminsky, Shifra Levartovsky, Ari Glikman, Shlomo Matalon, Nirit Tagger Green","doi":"10.11607/ijp.8700","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate and compare bacterial growth on zirconia vs titanium healing caps.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Streptococcus sanguinis (Ss) and Ftreptococcus nucleatum (Fn) were grown on titanium and zirconia healing caps that were fixed to the cover of a 96-well microtiter plate. A drop (10 μL) of bacterial suspension was placed on each healing cap and allowed to dry for 1 hour at 37°C. After this time, the cover was replaced on the plate such that the caps were completely immersed in fresh liquid medium. Each plate contained only one bacterial strain, with two control groups. Bacterial growth was monitored over 18 hours by following the optical density (OD) at 650 nm. One-way ANOVA comparison test was used for statistical analysis. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of healing caps of each material were taken after 48 hours of incubation with Ss or Fn to assess bacterial attachment and with no bacteria as a negative control.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ss growth was similar in both types of healing cap, with no significant differences between these groups and the control (P = .990). However, there was significantly less growth of Fn on the zirconia caps than on the titanium samples (P < .0001) or the control (P < .0001). SEM imaging revealed obvious differences in the surface characteristics of the titanium and zirconia caps. The number of bacteria attached to the rough apical area was particularly high.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of zirconia healing caps may reduce the growth of some bacterial species compared to that seen on titanium healing caps.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"667-674"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8700","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate and compare bacterial growth on zirconia vs titanium healing caps.

Materials and methods: Streptococcus sanguinis (Ss) and Ftreptococcus nucleatum (Fn) were grown on titanium and zirconia healing caps that were fixed to the cover of a 96-well microtiter plate. A drop (10 μL) of bacterial suspension was placed on each healing cap and allowed to dry for 1 hour at 37°C. After this time, the cover was replaced on the plate such that the caps were completely immersed in fresh liquid medium. Each plate contained only one bacterial strain, with two control groups. Bacterial growth was monitored over 18 hours by following the optical density (OD) at 650 nm. One-way ANOVA comparison test was used for statistical analysis. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of healing caps of each material were taken after 48 hours of incubation with Ss or Fn to assess bacterial attachment and with no bacteria as a negative control.

Results: Ss growth was similar in both types of healing cap, with no significant differences between these groups and the control (P = .990). However, there was significantly less growth of Fn on the zirconia caps than on the titanium samples (P < .0001) or the control (P < .0001). SEM imaging revealed obvious differences in the surface characteristics of the titanium and zirconia caps. The number of bacteria attached to the rough apical area was particularly high.

Conclusions: The use of zirconia healing caps may reduce the growth of some bacterial species compared to that seen on titanium healing caps.

钛与氧化锆治疗帽上的细菌生长。体外研究。
目的评价和比较氧化锆和钛治疗帽上的细菌生长情况。材料和方法在钛和氧化锆愈合帽上生长血红假单胞菌(Ss)和有核假丝酵母(Fn),所述愈合帽固定到96孔微量滴定板的盖上。在每个愈合帽上滴一滴(10μL)细菌悬浮液,并在37°C下干燥1h。在此之后,将盖子更换在板上,使得盖子完全浸入新鲜的液体介质中。每个平板只含有一种细菌菌株,有两个对照组。通过在650nm处跟踪光密度,在18h内监测细菌生长。采用单因素方差分析比较检验进行统计分析。在与Ss或Fn孵育48小时后,拍摄每种材料的愈合盖的扫描电子显微镜(SEM)图像,以评估细菌附着,并且没有细菌作为对照。结果两种类型的愈合帽中Ss的生长情况相似,与对照组相比差异无统计学意义(P=0.990),但氧化锆帽上Fn的生长明显少于钛帽(P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信