Antimicrobial efficacy of non-thermal plasma in comparison to chlorhexidine against dental biofilms on titanium discs in vitro - proof of principle experiment

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Periodontology and Endodontology, Unit of Periodontology, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University Greifswald, Germany.
Journal Of Clinical Periodontology (Impact Factor: 3.61). 07/2011; 38(10):956-65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01740.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Dental biofilms play a major role in the pathogenesis of peri-implant mucositis. Biofilm reduction is a pre-requisite for a successful therapy of peri-implant mucosal lesions. In this study, we evaluated the effect of three different plasma devices on the reduction of Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and multispecies human saliva biofilms.
We assessed the efficacy of three different non-thermal atmospheric pressure plasma devices against biofilms of S. mutans and saliva multispecies grown on titanium discs in vitro in comparison with a chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) rinse. Efficacy of plasma treatment was determined by the number of colony forming units (CFU) and by scanning electron microscopy. The results were reported as reduction of CFU (CFU(untreated) -CFU(treated) ).
The application of plasma was much more effective than CHX against biofilms. The maximum reduction of CHX was 3.36 for S. mutans biofilm and 1.50 for saliva biofilm, whereas the colony forming units (CFU) reduction of the volume dielectric barrier discharge argon plasma was 5.38 for S. mutans biofilm and 5.67 for saliva biofilm.
Treatment of single- and multispecies dental biofilms on titanium discs with non-thermal atmospheric pressure plasma was more efficient than CHX application in vitro. Thus, the development of plasma devices for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis may be fruitful.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Atmospheric pressure plasma-jets could be an alternative method to remove bacterial biofilms on orthopaedic implants. Furthermore, plasma-exposure might support the proliferation of osteoblasts after cleaning implants by activating the implant surface. In this comparative in vitro study, the efficacy of five different plasma sources concerning removal of bacterial biofilms and influence on human osteoblast cell attachment was tested. Two plasma sources revealed a significant reduction of bacterial viability (>90%) and enhanced spreading of osteoblastic cells. Promising results and potential for local plasma-jet application dealing with implant-related infections caused by bacterial biofilms was demonstrated.
    Plasma Processes and Polymers 03/2015; DOI:10.1002/ppap.201400176 · 3.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Orthopaedic biomaterials are susceptible to biofilm formation. A novel lipid-based material has been developed that may be loaded with antibiotics and applied as an implant coating at point of care. However, this material has not been evaluated for antibiotic elution, biofilm inhibition, or in vivo efficacy. (1) Do antibiotic-loaded coatings inhibit biofilm formation? (2) Is the coating effective in preventing biofilm in vivo? Purified phosphatidylcholine was mixed with 25% amikacin or vancomycin or a combination of 12.5% of both. A 7-day elution study for coated titanium and stainless steel coupons was followed by turbidity and zone of inhibition assays against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Coupons were inoculated with bacteria and incubated 24 hours (N = 4 for each test group). Microscopic images of biofilm were obtained. After washing and vortexing, attached bacteria were counted. A mouse biofilm model was modified to include coated and uncoated stainless steel wires inserted into the lumens of catheters inoculated with a mixture of S aureus or P aeruginosa. Colony-forming unit counts (N = 10) and scanning electron microscopy imaging of implants were used to determine antimicrobial activity. Active antibiotics with colony inhibition effects were eluted for up to 6 days. Antibiotic-loaded coatings inhibited biofilm formation on in vitro coupons (log-fold reductions of 4.3 ± 0.4 in S aureus and 3.1 ± 0 for P aeruginosa in phosphatidylcholine-only coatings, 5.6 ± 0 for S aureus and 3.1 ± 0 for P aeruginosa for combination-loaded coatings, 5.5 ± 0.3 for S aureus in vancomycin-loaded coatings, and 3.1 ± 0 for P aeruginosa for amikacin-loaded coatings (p < 0.001 for all comparisons of antibiotic-loaded coatings against uncoated controls for both bacterial strains, p < 0.001 for comparison of antibiotic-loaded coatings against phosphatidylcholine only for S aureus, p = 0.54 for comparison of vancomycin versus combination coating in S aureus, P = 0.99 for comparison of antibiotic- and unloaded phosphatidylcholine coatings in P aeruginosa). Similarly, antibiotic-loaded coatings reduced attachment of bacteria to wires in vivo (log-fold reduction of 2.54 ± 0; p < 0.001 for S aureus and 0.83 ± 0.3; p = 0.112 for P aeruginosa). Coatings deliver active antibiotics locally to inhibit biofilm formation and bacterial growth in vivo. Future evaluations will include orthopaedic preclinical models to confirm therapeutic efficacy. Clinical applications of local drug delivery coating could reduce the rate of implant-associated infections.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 01/2015; DOI:10.1007/s11999-014-4130-8 · 2.79 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Treatment of implants with peri-implantitis is often unsuccessful, because an instrumented implant surface and residual microbial biofilm impedes re-osseointegration. The application of cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) could be a simple and effective strategy to overcome the inherent problems of peri-implantitis treatment. CAP is able to destroy and eliminate bacterial biofilms. Additionally, it increases the wettability of titanium, which supports cellular attachment. In this study, the behaviour of osteoblasts on titanium discs was analysed after treatment of bacterial biofilms with CAP, brushing, or a combination of both.
    Biomaterials 06/2015; 52. DOI:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.02.035 · 8.31 Impact Factor