Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-05-2017 | Original Article

Influence of ultrasonic tip distance and orientation on biofilm removal

Authors: Stefanie J. Gartenmann, Thomas Thurnheer, Thomas Attin, Patrick R. Schmidlin

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 4/2017

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study is to assess the effects of ultrasonic tip distance and orientation on the removal of a multispecies biofilm under standardized conditions in vitro.

Methods

Six-species biofilms were grown on hydroxyapatite discs for 64 h and treated with a magnetostrictive ultrasonic tip (Cavitron) placed either on contact or at 0.25- and 0.5-mm distance. The treatment was performed for 15 s with either the tip at right angle or sideways. Biofilm removal was evaluated by assessing the viable bacteria in each supernatant and compared to respective controls. In the latter, biofilms were mechanically removed and evaluated in supernatants to assess adhering and floating bacteria. Colony-forming units (CFU) were determined by cultivation on solid media. Any remaining biofilm on the treated discs was also visualized after staining with green-fluorescent SYTO® 9 stain using a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Mann–Whitney U tests and Bonferroni correction were used to analyze the results between the groups.

Results

Sideways application of the ultrasonic tip at distances of 0.25 and 0.5 mm removed as many bacteria as present on the control discs compared to the tip on contact (p < 0.05). All other application modes, especially the ultrasonic tip applied perpendicularly on contact, showed no statistical significance in removing biofilm.

Conclusion

Overall, data indicated that bacterial detachment depended on tip orientation and distance, especially when the tip was applied sideways similar to the clinical setting.

Clinical relevance

Biofilm removal by means of ultrasonic debridement remains a crucial aspect in the treatment of periodontal disease. To ensure sufficient biofilm removal, the tip does not necessarily require contact to the surface, but an application parallel to the surface on the side is recommended.

Slots J (1979) Subgingival microflora and periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol 6:351–382CrossRefPubMed

Slots J (1999) Update on Actinobacillus Actinomycetemcomitans and Porphyromonas gingivalis in human periodontal disease. J Int Acad Periodontol 1:121–126PubMed

Slots J, Ting M (1999) Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans and Porphyromonas gingivalis in human periodontal disease: occurrence and treatment. Periodontol 20:82–121, 1999CrossRef

Tunkel J, Heinecke A, Flemmig TF (2002) A systematic review of efficacy of machine-driven and manual subgingival debridement in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 29(Suppl 3):72–81, discussion 90–71CrossRefPubMed

Meyer K, Lie T (1977) Root surface roughness in response to periodontal instrumentation studied by combined use of microroughness measurements and scanning electron microscopy. J Clin Periodontol 4:77–91CrossRefPubMed

Breininger DR, O'Leary TJ, Blumenshine RV (1987) Comparative effectiveness of ultrasonic and hand scaling for the removal of subgingival plaque and calculus. J Periodontol 58:9–18. doi:10.1902/jop.1987.58.1.9 CrossRefPubMed

Torfason T, Kiger R, Selvig KA, Egelberg J (1979) Clinical improvement of gingival conditions following ultrasonic versus hand instrumentation of periodontal pockets. J Clin Periodontol 6:165–176CrossRefPubMed

Badersten A, Nilveus R, Egelberg J (1984) Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy. II. Severely advanced periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 11:63–76CrossRefPubMed

Walsh TF, Waite IM (1978) A comparison of postsurgical healing following debridement by ultrasonic or hand instruments. J Periodontol 49:201–205. doi:10.1902/jop.1978.49.4.201 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Caffesse RG, Sweeney PL, Smith BA (1986) Scaling and root planing with and without periodontal flap surgery. J Clin Periodontol 13:205–210CrossRefPubMed

11.

Brayer WK, Mellonig JT, Dunlap RM, Marinak KW, Carson RE (1989) Scaling and root planing effectiveness: the effect of root surface access and operator experience. J Periodontol 60:67–72. doi:10.1902/jop.1989.60.1.67 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Fleischer HC, Mellonig JT, Brayer WK, Gray JL, Barnett JD (1989) Scaling and root planing efficacy in multirooted teeth. J Periodontol 60:402–409. doi:10.1902/jop.1989.60.7.402 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Wylam JM, Mealey BL, Mills MP, Waldrop TC, Moskowicz DC (1993) The clinical effectiveness of open versus closed scaling and root planing on multi-rooted teeth. J Periodontol 64:1023–1028. doi:10.1902/jop.1993.64.11.1023 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Lampe Bless K, Sener B, Dual J, Attin T, Schmidlin PR (2011) Cleaning ability and induced dentin loss of a magnetostrictive ultrasonic instrument at different power settings. Clin Oral Investig 15:241–248. doi:10.1007/s00784-009-0379-9 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Lea SC, Felver B, Landini G, Walmsley AD (2009) Three-dimensional analyses of ultrasonic scaler oscillations. J Clin Periodontol 36:44–50. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01339.x CrossRefPubMed

16.

Lea SC, Landini G, Walmsley AD (2004) Thermal imaging of ultrasonic scaler tips during tooth instrumentation. J Clin Periodontol 31:370–375. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00491.x CrossRefPubMed

17.

Walmsley AD, Laird WR, Williams AR (1988) Dental plaque removal by cavitational activity during ultrasonic scaling. J Clin Periodontol 15:539–543CrossRefPubMed

18.

Khambay BS, Walmsley AD (1999) Acoustic microstreaming: detection and measurement around ultrasonic scalers. J Periodontol 70:626–631. doi:10.1902/jop.1999.70.6.626 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Walmsley AD, Walsh TF, Laird WR, Williams AR (1990) Effects of cavitational activity on the root surface of teeth during ultrasonic scaling. J Clin Periodontol 17:306–312CrossRefPubMed

20.

Walmsley AD, Laird WR, Williams AR (1986) Displacement amplitude as a measure of the acoustic output of ultrasonic scalers. Dent Mater 2:97–100CrossRefPubMed

21.

Walmsley AD, Laird WR, Williams AR (1986) Inherent variability of the performance of the ultrasonic descaler. J Dent 14:121–125CrossRefPubMed

22.

Zhong P, Chuong CJ (1993) Propagation of shock waves in elastic solids caused by cavitation microjet impact. I: theoretical formulation. J Acoust Soc Am 94:19–28CrossRefPubMed

23.

Zhong P, Chuong CJ, Preminger GM (1993) Propagation of shock waves in elastic solids caused by cavitation microjet impact. II: application in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Acoust Soc Am 94:29–36CrossRefPubMed

24.

Miller MW, Miller DL, Brayman AA (1996) A review of in vitro bioeffects of inertial ultrasonic cavitation from a mechanistic perspective. Ultrasound Med Biol 22:1131–1154CrossRefPubMed

25.

Thurnheer T, Rohrer E, Belibasakis GN, Attin T, Schmidlin PR (2014) Static biofilm removal around ultrasonic tips in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 18:1779–1784. doi:10.1007/s00784-013-1157-2 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Shapiro S, Giertsen E, Guggenheim B (2002) An in vitro oral biofilm model for comparing the efficacy of antimicrobial mouthrinses. Caries Res 36:93–100, 57866CrossRefPubMed

27.

Gmur R, Guggenheim B (1983) Antigenic heterogeneity of Bacteroides intermedius as recognized by monoclonal antibodies. Infect Immun 42:459–470PubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Thurnheer T, Gmur R, Shapiro S, Guggenheim B (2003) Mass transport of macromolecules within an in vitro model of supragingival plaque. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:1702–1709CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Doinikov AA, Bouakaz A (2010) Acoustic microstreaming around a gas bubble. J Acoust Soc Am 127:703–709. doi:10.1121/1.3279793 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Walmsley AD, Williams AR (1991) Measurement of cavitational activity within ultrasonic baths. J Dent 19:62–66CrossRefPubMed

31.

Lea SC, Price GJ, Walmsley AD (2005) A study to determine whether cavitation occurs around dental ultrasonic scaling instruments. Ultrason Sonochem 12:233–236. doi:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2003.10.006 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Riesz P, Kondo T (1992) Free radical formation induced by ultrasound and its biological implications. Free Radic Biol Med 13:247–270CrossRefPubMed

33.

Flemmig TF, Petersilka GJ, Mehl A, Hickel R, Klaiber B (1998) Working parameters of a magnetostrictive ultrasonic scaler influencing root substance removal in vitro. J Periodontol 69:547–553. doi:10.1902/jop.1998.69.5.547 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Flemmig TF, Petersilka GJ, Mehl A, Hickel R, Klaiber B (1998) The effect of working parameters on root substance removal using a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler in vitro. J Clin Periodontol 25:158–163CrossRefPubMed

35.

Walmsley AD, Lea SC, Felver B, King DC, Price GJ (2013) Mapping cavitation activity around dental ultrasonic tips. Clin Oral Investig 17:1227–1234. doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0802-5 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Felver B, King DC, Lea SC, Price GJ, Damien Walmsley A (2009) Cavitation occurrence around ultrasonic dental scalers. Ultrason Sonochem 16:692–697. doi:10.1016/j.ultsonch.2008.11.002 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Busscher HJ, Jager D, Finger G, Schaefer N, van der Mei HC (2010) Energy transfer, volumetric expansion, and removal of oral biofilms by non-contact brushing. Eur J Oral Sci 118:177–182. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0722.2010.00723.x CrossRefPubMed

38.

Schmidt JC, Zaugg C, Weiger R, Walter C (2013) Brushing without brushing?--a review of the efficacy of powered toothbrushes in noncontact biofilm removal. Clin Oral Investig 17:687–709. doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0836-8 CrossRefPubMed

39.

Jepsen S, Ayna M, Hedderich J, Eberhard J (2004) Significant influence of scaler tip design on root substance loss resulting from ultrasonic scaling: a laserprofilometric in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol 31:1003–1006. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00601.x CrossRefPubMed

40.

Lea SC, Walmsley AD (2009) Mechano-physical and biophysical properties of power-driven scalers: driving the future of powered instrument design and evaluation. Periodontol 51:63–78. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00300.x, 2000CrossRef

41.

Guggenheim B, Guggenheim M, Gmur R, Giertsen E, Thurnheer T (2004) Application of the Zurich biofilm model to problems of cariology. Caries Res 38:212–222. doi:10.1159/000077757 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Guggenheim M, Thurnheer T, Gmur R, Giovanoli P, Guggenheim B (2011) Validation of the Zurich burn-biofilm model. Burns 37:1125–1133. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2011.05.017 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Guggenheim B, Giertsen E, Schupbach P, Shapiro S (2001) Validation of an in vitro biofilm model of supragingival plaque. J Dent Res 80:363–370CrossRefPubMed

44.

Muller P, Guggenheim B, Schmidlin PR (2007) Efficacy of gasiform ozone and photodynamic therapy on a multispecies oral biofilm in vitro. Eur J Oral Sci 115:77–80. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0722.2007.00418.x CrossRefPubMed

45.

Guggenheim B, Gmur R, Galicia JC, Stathopoulou PG, Benakanakere MR, Meier A, Thurnheer T, Kinane DF (2009) In vitro modeling of host-parasite interactions: the ‘subgingival’ biofilm challenge of primary human epithelial cells. BMC Microbiol 9:280. doi:10.1186/1471-2180-9-280 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Influence of ultrasonic tip distance and orientation on biofilm removal
Authors: Stefanie J. Gartenmann
Thomas Thurnheer
Thomas Attin
Patrick R. Schmidlin
Publication date: 01-05-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1854-8

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Influence of ultrasonic tip distance and orientation on biofilm removal

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Effect of mouthwashes on the composition and metabolic activity of oral biofilms grown in vitro

Evaluation of cavity wall adaptation of bulk esthetic materials to restore class II cavities in primary molars

Impact of combined CO2 laser irradiation and fluoride on enamel and dentin biofilm-induced mineral loss

Parkinson’s disease impairs masticatory function

The influence of infantile thiamine deficiency on primary dentition

Clinical evaluation of composite restorations in Er:YAG laser-prepared cavities re-wetting with chlorhexidine