The role of bacterial corrosion on recolonization of titanium implant surfaces: An in vitro study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inflammation triggered by bacterial biofilms in the surrounding tissue is a major etiological factor for peri-implantitis and subsequent implant failure. However, little is known about the direct effects of bacterial corrosion and recolonization on implant failure PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of oral commensals on bacterial corrosion and recolonization of titanium surfaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Streptococcus sanguinis (S. sanguinis) and Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis), which are key bacteria in oral biofilm formation, were cultured on commercially pure titanium and titanium-aluminum-vanadium (Ti6Al4V) plates in artificial saliva/brain heart infusion medium under aerobic or anaerobic conditions. Biofilm formation was examined after 7 and 21 days by crystal violet and live/dead staining. Titanium ions released into culture supernatants were analyzed over a period of 21 days by atomic absorption spectrometry. Visual changes in surface morphology were investigated using scanning electron microscopy. Biofilm formation on sterilized, biocorroded, and recolonized implant surfaces was determined by crystal violet staining. RESULTS: S. sanguinis and P. gingivalis formed stable biofilms on the titanium samples. Bacterial corrosion led to a significant increase in titanium ion release from these titanium plates (p < 0.01), which was significantly higher under aerobic conditions on pure titanium (p ≤ 0.001). No obvious morphological surface changes, such as pitting and discoloration, were detected in the titanium samples. During early biofilm formation, the addition of titanium ions significantly decreased the number of live cells. In contrast, a significant effect on biofilm mass was only detected with P. gingivalis. Bacterial corrosion had no influence on bacterial recolonization following sterilization of titanium and Ti6Al4V surfaces. CONCLUSION: Bacterial corrosion differs between oral commensal bacteria and leads to increased titanium ion release from titanium plates. The titanium ion release did not influence biofilm formation or bacterial recolonization under in vitro conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".