In vitro evaluation of microbial adhesion on the different surface roughness of acrylic resin specific for ocular prosthesis

 

 Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of surface roughness in biofilm formation of four microorganisms (Staphylococcus epidermidis, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Candida albicans) on acrylic resin surface of ocular prostheses. Materials and Methods: Acrylic resin samples were divided into six groups according to polishing: Group 1200S (1200 grit + silica solution); Group 1200; Group 800; Group 400; Group 120 and Group unpolished. Surface roughness was measured using a profilometer and surface images obtained with atomic force microscopy. Microbial growth was evaluated after 4, 24, and 48 hours of incubation by counting colony-forming units. Statistical Analysis Used: For roughness, it was performed 1-way ANOVA and parametric Tukey test α5% (P ≤ 0.05). For CFU data found, it was applied Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. Results: Group 120 and 400 presented the highest roughness values. For S. epidermidis and S. aureus, Group 1200S presented the lowest values of microbial growth. For E. faecalis at 4 hour, microbial growth was not observed. C. albicans did not adhere to the acrylic resin. Except for Group 1200S, different surface roughnesses did not statistically interfere with microbial adhesion and growth on acrylic surfaces of ocular prostheses. Conclusions: The roughness did not interfere with the microbial adhesion of the microorganisms evaluated. The use of silica decreases significantly microbial growth.

• REFERENCES

• 1 Dayal Y, Rao SS, Mahajan VM. Comparative study of bacterial and fungal floras of contracted sockets and fellow eyes. Ann Ophthalmol 1984; 16: 154 156, 158
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Arciola CR, Campoccia D, Speziale P, Montanaro L, Costerton JW. Biofilm formation in Staphylococcus implant infections. A review of molecular mechanisms and implications for biofilm-resistant materials. Biomaterials 2012; 33: 5967-82
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Veyries ML, Faurisson F, Joly-Guillou ML, Rouveix B. Control of staphylococcal adhesion to polymethylmethacrylate and enhancement of susceptibility to antibiotics by poloxamer 407. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2000; 44: 1093-6
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Vacheethasanee K, Marchant RE. Surfactant polymers designed to suppress bacterial (Staphylococcus epidermidis) adhesion on biomaterials. J Biomed Mater Res 2000; 50: 302-12
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Singh D, Kaur H, Gardner WG, Treen LB. Bacterial contamination of hospital pagers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002; 23: 274-6
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Rishi E, Rishi P, Nandi K, Shroff D, Therese KL. Endophthalmitis caused by Enterococcus faecalis: A case series. Retina 2009; 29: 214-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Peng CH, Cheng CK, Chang CK, Chen YL. Multiresistant enterococci: A rare cause of complicated corneal ulcer and review of the literature. Can J Ophthalmol 2009; 44: 214-5
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Paranhos RM, Batalhão CH, Semprini M, Regalo SC, Ito IY, de Mattos Mda G. et al. Evaluation of ocular prosthesis biofilm and anophthalmic cavity contamination after use of three cleansing solutions. J Appl Oral Sci 2007; 15: 33-8
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Scherer WJ, Lee K. Implications of early systemic therapy on the incidence of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 1593-8
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Williams MA, McMullan R, Hedderwick S, Mulholland DA, Best RM. Diagnosis and treatment of endogenous fungal endophthalmitis. Ophthalmologica 2006; 220: 134-6
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Katsikogianni M, Missirlis YF. Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterials and of techniques used in estimating bacteria-material interactions. Eur Cell Mater 2004; 8: 37-57
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC. Physico-chemical interactions in initial microbial adhesion and relevance for biofilm formation. Adv Dent Res 1997; 11: 24-32
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Gottenbos B, Van Der Mei HC, Busscher HJ, Grijpma DW, Feijen J. Initial adhesion and surface growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on negatively and positively charged poly (methacrylates). J Mater Sci Mater Med 1999; 10: 853-5
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Scheuerman TR, Camper AK, Hamilton MA. Effects of substratum topography on bacterial adhesion. J Colloid Interface Sci 1998; 208: 23-33
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17 (Suppl. 02) 68-81
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Subramani K, Jung RE, Molenberg A, Hammerle CH. Biofilm on dental implants: A review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009; 24: 616-26
  Google Scholar
• 17 Quirynen M, van der Mei HC, Bollen CM, Schotte A, Marechal M, Doornbusch GI. et al. An in vivo study of the influence of the surface roughness of implants on the microbiology of supra- and subgingival plaque. J Dent Res 1993; 72: 1304-9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Yoda I, Koseki H, Tomita M, Shida T, Horiuchi H, Sakoda H. et al. Effect of surface roughness of biomaterials on Staphylococcus epidermidis adhesion. BMC Microbiol 2014; 14-234
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Sousa C, Teixeira P, Oliveira R. Influence of surface properties on the adhesion of Staphylococcus epidermidis to acrylic and silicone. Int J Biomater 2009; 2009: 718017
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Loney RW, Moulding MB, Hacker CH, Ritsco RG. Finishing and polishing of a poly (fluoroalkoxyphosphazene) resilient denture liner. Int J Prosthodont 1994; 7: 362-7
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 An YH, Friedman RJ. Concise review of mechanisms of bacterial adhesion to biomaterial surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res 1998; 43: 338-48
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997; 13: 258-69
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Taha M, El-Fallal A, Degla H. In vitro and in vivo biofilm adhesion to esthetic coated arch wires and its correlation with surface roughness. Angle Orthod 2016; 86: 285-91
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Bollen CM, Papaioanno W, Van Eldere J, Schepers E, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. et al. The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996; 7: 201-11
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Quirynen M, Bollen CM. The influence of surface roughness and surface-free energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol 1995; 22: 1-4
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Lee BC, Jung GY, Kim DJ, Han JS. Initial bacterial adhesion on resin, titanium and zirconia in vitro. J Adv Prosthodont 2011; 3: 81-4
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Zamperini CA, Carneiro Hde L, Rangel EC, Cruz NC, Vergani CE, Machado AL. et al. In vitro adhesion of Candida glabrata to denture base acrylic resin modified by glow-discharge plasma treatment. Mycoses 2013; 56: 134-44
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Taylor RL, Verran J, Lees GC, Ward AJ. The influence of substratum topography on bacterial adhesion to polymethyl methacrylate. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1998; 9: 17-22
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Lee HJ, Park HS, Kim KH, Kwon TY, Hong SH. Effect of garlic on bacterial biofilm formation on orthodontic wire. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 895-900
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Lee HJ, Park HS, Kim KH, Kwon TY, Hong SH. Surface characteristics of orthodontic materials and their effects on adhesion of mutans streptococci. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 895-900
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Kim IH, Park HS, Kim YK, Kim KH, Kwon TY. Comparative short-term in vitro analysis of mutans streptococci adhesion on esthetic, nickel-titanium, and stainless-steel arch wires. Angle Orthod 2014; 84: 680-6
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Garrett TR, Bhakoob M, Zhanga Z. Bacterial adhesion and biofilms on surfaces. Prog Nat Sci 2008; 10: 1049-56
  Google Scholar
• 33 Germano F, Bramanti E, Arcuri C, Cecchetti F, Cicciù M. Atomic force microscopy of bacteria from periodontal subgingival biofilm: Preliminary study results. Eur J Dent 2013; 7: 152-8
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Zhao Q, Liu Y, Wang C, Wang S, Peng N, Jeynes C. et al. Reduction of bacterial adhesion on ion-implanted stainless steel surfaces. Med Eng Phys 2008; 30: 341-9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Rashid H. The effect of surface roughness on ceramics used in dentistry: A review of literature. Eur J Dent 2014; 8: 571-9
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Silva S, Pires P, Monteiro DR, Negri M, Gorup LF, Camargo ER. et al. The effect of silver nanoparticles and nystatin on mixed biofilms of Candida glabrata and Candida albicans on acrylic. Med Mycol 2013; 51: 178-84
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Rosa MB, Albrektsson T, Francischone CE, Schwartz Filho HO, Wennerberg A. The influence of surface treatment on the implant roughness pattern. J Appl Oral Sci 2012; 20: 550-5
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Izumida FE, Moffa EB, Vergani CE, Machado AL, Jorge JH, Giampaolo ET. et al. In vitro evaluation of adherence of Candida albicans, Candida glabrata, and Streptococcus mutans to an acrylic resin modified by experimental coatings. Biofouling 2014; 30: 525-33
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar