A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Comparison of Biofilm Formation on Titanium and Zirconia Implants. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Peri-implant diseases are emerging issues in contemporary implant dentistry. As biofilms play a critical role in peri-implant diseases, the characteristic of resisting bacterial adhesion would be ideal for dental implants. The aims of the study were to compare titanium (Ti) and zirconia (Zr) implants regarding the amount of biofilm formation at different time frames and assess the distribution of biofilm on different aspects of dental implants.

Methods: Biofilm was developed on Ti and Zr dental implants with a peri-implant-related multispecies model with , , , and , for 3 and 14 days. Quantitative assessment was performed with the measurement of total bacterial viability (colony forming units, CFU/mg). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to evaluate biofilm formation on different aspects of the implants.

Results: Three-day-old biofilm on Ti implants was significantly higher than that on Zr implants ( < 0.001). The Ti and Zr groups were not significantly different for 14-day-old biofilm. SEM images demonstrated that 3-day-old biofilm on Zr implants was sparse while biofilm growth was more pronounced for 3-day-old biofilm on Ti implants and 14-day-old biofilm groups. It appeared that less biofilm formed on the valley compared to the thread top for 3-day-old biofilm on Zr implants. Differences between the valley and the thread top became indistinguishable with the development of mature biofilm.

Conclusion: While early formed biofilms show greater accumulation on Ti implants compared to Zr implants, older biofilms between the two groups are comparable. The distribution of biofilms was not uniform on different areas of implant threads during early biofilm development.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10122594PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/8728499DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

biofilm implants
16
biofilm
13
biofilm formation
12
3-day-old biofilm
12
implants
11
titanium zirconia
8
zirconia implants
8
peri-implant diseases
8
dental implants
8
14-day-old biofilm
8

Similar Publications