Antimicrobial efficacy of non-thermal plasma in comparison to chlorhexidine against dental biofilms on titanium discs in vitro - proof of principle experiment.
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.
- Journal of Periodontology 12/1978; 49(11):585-91. · 2.40 Impact Factor
- Journal of Periodontal Research 02/1970; 5(2):79-83. · 1.99 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Removal of plaque and calculus by means of sonic and ultrasonic scalers causes considerable damage to implants. With a view to avoiding the aggressive effects of these instruments, an experimental study was carried out for which conventional sonic and ultrasonic scalers were coated with Teflon. The effects of these instruments on implant surfaces was then compared with that of plastic and metal implant curettes. Stereo-microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and surface profilometry were used to detect and record damage to implant surfaces and changes in surface roughness. Generation and propagation of heat in subgingival simulation of use of sonic and ultrasonic scalers were also recorded by means of temperature measurements at the implant surface. The results revealed that no discernible damage was caused by Teflon-coated sonic and ultrasonic scalers or implant curettes made of plastic on smooth titanium surfaces. Instrument material residues were found on rough implant surfaces. It was not the intention of this study to provide an analysis of the prerequisites for the cleaning of rough implant surfaces, but rather to determine what type of damage is to be expected when contact is made with smooth and rough surfaces unintentionally. Temperature measurements during the subgingival use of sonic and ultrasonic scalers indicated satisfactory functioning of the cooling system. Coating of sonic and ultrasonic scaler tips with Teflon thus facilitates the use of high-frequency instruments to achieve professional cleaning of implants.Clinical Oral Implants Research 04/1994; 5(1):19-29. · 3.43 Impact Factor