Advertisement

Adhesion of Biofilms on Titanium Measured by Laser-Induced Spallation

  • J. D. Boyd
  • N. Korotkova
  • M. E. Grady
Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Eradication of established implant-associated and bacterial biofilm-forming infections remains difficult in part because these biofilms remain well-adhered to the implant surface. Few experimental techniques are available to measure macro-scale strength of bacterial biofilm-implant adhesion. We have adapted the laser spallation technique to compare the macro-scale adhesion strength of biofilms formed on titanium. By using a rapid pressure wave (35 ns) to load the interface, we prevent disturbance of the biofilm surface prior to measurement, and preclude the time necessary for the biofilm to respond to and adapt under loading. Biofilms of Streptococcus mutans, a Gram-positive bacterium associated with human dental caries (cavities) were cultured directly on commercially pure titanium within our custom substrate assembly. Growth conditions were varied by adding sucrose to the Todd Hewitt Yeast (THY) broth: THY control, 37.5 mM, 75 mM, 375 mM, and 750 mM sucrose. Multiple locations on each biofilm were loaded using the laser spallation technique. Loading pressure wave amplitude was controlled by adjusting laser fluence, energy per area. Initially, addition of sucrose to the media increased biofilm adhesion to titanium. However, once a saturation concentration of 75 mM sucrose was reached, increasing the sucrose concentration further resulted in a decrease in biofilm adhesion. This study is the first demonstration of the adaptation of the laser spallation technique to measure bacterial biofilm adhesion. Establishment of this macro-scale biofilm adhesion measurement technique opens the door for many biofilm-surface adhesion studies. We anticipate further work in this area towards understanding the complex relationships among bacteria species, environmental factors, surface characteristics, and biofilm adhesion strength.

Keywords

Laser spallation Stress waves Adhesion Biofilms Dental implants 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge NIH COBRE Phase III pilot funding under number 5P30GM110788-04 to carry out these experiments. SEM images were taken within the Electron Microscopy Center at the University of Kentucky by staff associate Azin Akbari. We thank the Center for Pharmaceutical Research and Innovation (CPRI) for use of bacterial culture equipment. CPRI is supported, in part, by the University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy and Center for Clinical and Translational Science (UL1TR001998). We thank Dr. Larissa Ponomareva for sharing her bacterial culture expertise. We would also like to thank Drs. Craig Miller, Lina Sharab, and Ahmad Kutkut from the University of Kentucky College of Dentistry for their guidance.

References

  1. 1.
    Busscher HJ, Rinastiti M, Siswomihardjo W, van der Mei HC (2010) Biofilm Formation on Dental Restorative and Implant Materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol MedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van Houdt R, Michiels CW (2010) Biofilm formation and the food industry, a focus on the bacterial outer surface. J Appl Microbiol 109(4):1117–1131Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cathryn CM et al (2014) Spatial distribution of marine invasive species: environmental, demographic and vector drivers. Divers Distrib 20(7):824–836Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donlan RM (2011) Biofilm Elimination on Intravascular Catheters: Important Considerations for the Infectious Disease Practitioner. Clin Infect Dis 52(8):1038–1045Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dhir S (2012) Biofilm and dental implant: The microbial link. Society of PeriodontologyGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rajiv Saini SS, Sharma S (2011) Biofilm: A dental microbial infection. Journal of Natural Science, Biology and MedicineGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garrett TR, Bhakoo M, Zhang ZB (2008) Bacterial adhesion and biofilms on surfaces. Progress in Natural Science-Materials International 18(9):1049–1056Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fang HH, Chan K-Y, Xu L-C (2000) Quantification of bacterial adhesion forces using atomic force microscopy (AFM). J Microbiol Methods 40(1):89–97Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boyd RD et al (2002) Use of the atomic force microscope to determine the effect of substratum surface topography on bacterial adhesion. Langmuir 18(6):2343–2346Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang H, Liu KK (2008) Optical tweezers for single cells. J R Soc Interface 5(24):671–690Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fallman E et al (2004) Optical tweezers based force measurement system for quantitating binding interactions: system design and application for the study of bacterial adhesion. Biosens Bioelectron 19(11):1429–1437Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ghanem MA et al (2018) Opto-acoustic microscopy reveals adhesion mechanics of single cells. Rev Sci Instrum 89(1):014901MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hinterdorfer P, Dufrene YF (2006) Detection and localization of single molecular recognition events using atomic force microscopy. Nat Methods 3(5):347–355Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nikhil ST, Bharat B (2004) Scale dependence of micro/nano-friction and adhesion of MEMS/NEMS materials, coatings and lubricants. Nanotechnology 15(11):1561Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burks GA et al (2003) Macroscopic and Nanoscale Measurements of the Adhesion of Bacteria with Varying Outer Layer Surface Composition. Langmuir 19(6):2366–2371Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mittal KL (1975) Adhesion measurement of thin films. Electrocompon Sci Technol 3:21–42Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hull TR, Colligon JS, Hill AE (1987) Measurement of thin film adhesion. Vacuum 37(3):327–330Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dastjerdi AK et al (2012) Cohesive behavior of soft biological adhesives: experiments and modeling. Acta Biomater 8(9):3349–3359Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Busscher HJ, van der Mei HC (2006) Microbial adhesion in flow displacement systems. Clin Microbiol Rev 19(1):127–141Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Paul E et al (2012) Effect of shear stress and growth conditions on detachment and physical properties of biofilms. Water Res 46(17):5499–5508Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gupta V, Hernandez R, Charconnet P (2001) Effect of humidity and temperature on the tensile strength of polyimide/silicon nitride interface and its implications for electronic device reliability. Materials Science and Engineering a-Structural Materials Properties Microstructure and Processing 317(1–2):249–256Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Grady ME, Geubelle PH, Sottos NR (2014) Interfacial adhesion of photodefinable polyimide films on passivated silicon. Thin Solid Films 552:116–123Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kandula SSV et al (2008) Adhesion strength measurement of polymer dielectric interfaces using laser spallation technique. Thin Solid Films 516(21):7627–7635Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Grady ME et al (2014) Shockwave Loading of Mechanochemically Active Polymer Coatings. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6(8):5350–5355Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gupta V (1999) Surface science-based adhesion enhancement using a laser spallation technique. Surface Engineering: Science and Technology I 9–20Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grady ME et al (2014) Molecular Tailoring of Interfacial Failure. Langmuir 30(37):11096–11102Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kingstedt OT, Lambros J (2015) Ultra-high Speed Imaging of Laser-Induced Spallation. Exp Mech 55(3):587–598Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang JL, Weaver RL, Sottos NR (2002) A parametric study of laser induced thin film spallation. Exp Mech 42(1):74–83Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ehrhart B et al (2014) Development of a laser shock adhesion test for the assessment of weak adhesive bonded CFRP structures. Int J Adhes Adhes 52:57–65Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ecault R et al (2016) Numerical modeling of laser-induced shock experiments for the development of the adhesion test for bonded composite materials. Compos Struct 152:382–394Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berfield TA, Kitey R, Kandula SS (2016) Adhesion strength of lead zirconate titanate sol-gel thin films. Thin Solid Films 598:230–235Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lili Hu, Zhang X, Miller P, Ozkan M, Ozkan C, Wang J (2006) Cell adhesion measurement by laser-induced stress waves. Journal of Applies Physics 100Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hagerman E et al (2007) Evaluation of laser spallation as a technique for measurement of cell adhesion strength. J Biomed Mater Res A 82A(4):852–860Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miller P, Hu L, Wang J (2010) Finite element simulation of cell-substrate decohesion by laser-induced stress waves. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 3(3):268–277Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nakamura H et al (2006) Glycosaminoglycan degradation reduces mineralized tissue-titanium interfacial strength. J Biomed Mater Res A 77(3):478–486Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sherman B, Liou H-C, Balogun O (2015) Thin film interface stresses produced by high amplitude laser generated surface acoustic waves. J Appl Phys 118(13):135303Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Krzyściak W et al (2014) The virulence of Streptococcus mutans and the ability to form biofilms. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 33(4):499–515Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Barbosa JO et al (2016) Streptococcus mutans Can Modulate Biofilm Formation and Attenuate the Virulence of Candida albicans. PLoS One 11(3):e0150457MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Flemming H-C, Wingender J (2010) The biofilm matrix. Nat Rev Microbiol 8(9):623–633Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zijnge V et al (2010) Oral Biofilm Architecture on Natural Teeth. PLoS One 5(2):e9321Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bowen WH, Koo H (2011) Biology of Streptococcus mutans-Derived Glucosyltransferases: Role in Extracellular Matrix Formation of Cariogenic Biofilms. Caries Res 45(1):69–86Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Moye ZD, Zeng L, Burne RA (2014) Fueling the caries process: carbohydrate metabolism and gene regulation by Streptococcus mutans. J Oral Microbiol 6:24878Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Barfeie A, Wilson J, Rees J (2015) Implant surface characteristics and their effect on osseointegration. Br Dent J 218(5):E9–E9Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Oshida Y (2013) Bioscience and bioengineering of titanium material Elsevier. 2nd EditionGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Atieh MA, Alasbeeha NHM, Faggion CM Jr., Duncan WJ (2012) The frequency of peri-implant diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PeriodontalGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shen JZ, Kosmač T (2014) Advanced ceramics for dentistry. Butterworth-Heinemann, WalthamGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Barker LM (1972) Laser Interferometry in Shock-Wave Research. Exp Mech 12(5):209Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gupta V et al (1990) Measurement of interface strength by laser-pulse-induced spallation. Mater Sci Eng A 126(1):105–117Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Paes Leme AF, Bellato CM, Bedi G, Del Bel Cury AA, Koo H, Cury JA (2008) Effects of Sucrose on the Extracellular Matrix of Plaque-Like Biofilm Formed in vivo, Studied by Proteomic Analysis. Caries Res 42(6):435–443Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cai J-N et al (2016) Functional Relationship between Sucrose and a Cariogenic Biofilm Formation. PLoS One 11(6):e0157184Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lee S et al (1996) Alteration of cell membrane by stress waves in vitro. Ultrasound Med Biol 22(9):1285–1293Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Molecular & Cellular BiochemistryUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations