Dental Implant Texture Affects Biofilm Adhesion Strength

  • James D. Boyd
  • Natalia Korotkova
  • Martha E. GradyEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)


Peri-implantitis, a disease formed by subgingival biofilm between dental implants and surrounding tissue, can lead to necrosis or implant loss. The development of an implant surface that promotes osseointegration and deters bacterial biofilm adhesion is paramount to prevent peri-implantitis. A technique to quantify adhesion strengths of biofilms is important to optimize surfaces which prevent bacteria from adhering strongly. The laser spallation technique has been recently adapted to obtain quantitative measures of biofilm adhesion. One key advantage of laser spallation is it results in quantified adhesion strength while using a non-contact high strain rate force. Image analysis can be used to obtain fluence, energy per unit area, at spallation of the biofilm, along with one dimensional wave analysis and finite element analysis, a quantitative interface adhesion strength can be determined for the biofilm-implant interface. In this study, Streptococcus mutans, a gram-positive facultative anaerobe, was chosen because it promotes the attachment and growth of more harmful bacteria. The competition between oral bacteria and cell should also be considered when comparing implant surface characteristics. MG-63 was chosen as it closely mimics osteoblast adhesion. We will demonstrate the competition in adhesion between S. mutans and osteoblast like cells on dental implant mimicking surfaces through the adaptation of the laser spallation technique. This study will lead to the development of dental implant surfaces which promote osseointegration and inhibit biofilm formation. Furthermore, the laser spallation technique will be used to optimize other medical implant surfaces, and surfaces where biofilms have deleterious effects.


Biofilms Laser spallation Adhesion Streptococcus mutans MG-63 Dental implants 



We would like to acknowledge NIH COBRE Phase III pilot funding under number 5P30GM110788-04 to carry out these experiments. 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.


  1. 1.
    L. Gaviria, J.P. Salcido, T. Guda, J.L. Ong, Current trends in dental implants. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 40(2), 50–60 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    H.J. Busscher, M. Rinastiti, W. Siswomihardjo, H.C. van der Mei, Biofilm formation on dental restorative and implant materials. J. Dent. Res. 89(7), 657–665 (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Saini, S. Saini, S. Sharma, Biofilm: A dental microbial infection. J. Nat. Sci. Biol. Med. 2(1), 71–75 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P.A. Steinmann, H.E. Hintermann, A review of the mechanical tests for assessment of thin-film adhesion. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 7(3), 2267–2272 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K.L. Mittal, Adhesion measurement of thin films. Electrocompon. Sci. Technol. 3(1), 21–42 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M.D. Thouless, Fracture mechanics for thin-film adhesion. IBM J. Res. Dev. 38(4), 367–377 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Wang, N.R. Sottos, R.L. Weaver, Mixed-mode failure of thin films using laser-generated shear waves. Exp. Mech. 43(3), 323–330 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M.E. Grady, P.H. Geubelle, P.V. Braun, N.R. Sottos, Molecular tailoring of interfacial failure. Langmuir 30(37), 11096–11102 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M.E. Grady, P.H. Geubelle, N.R. Sottos, Interfacial adhesion of photodefinable polyimide films on passivated silicon. Thin Solid Films 552, 116–123 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    V. Gupta, A.S. Argon, J.A. Cornie, D.M. Parks, Measurement of interface strength by laser-pulse-induced spallation. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 126(1), 105–117 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.L. Wang, R.L. Weaver, N.R. Sottos, A parametric study of laser induced thin film spallation. Exp. Mech. 42(1), 74–83 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    L.L. Hu, X. Zhang, P. Miller, M. Ozkan, C. Ozkan, J.L. Wang, Cell adhesion measurement by laser-induced stress waves. J. Appl. Phys. 100(8), 084701 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    N.C. Francis, I. Kassam, B. Nowroozi, W.S. Grundfest, Z.D. Taylor, Analysis of flexible substrates for clinical translation of laser-generated shockwave therapy. Biomed. Opt. Express 6(3), 827–837 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Miller, L. Hu, J. Wang, Finite element simulation of cell-substrate decohesion by laser-induced stress waves. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 3(3), 268–277 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. Nakamura, J. Shim, F. Butz, H. Aita, V. Gupta, T. Ogawa, Glycosaminoglycan degradation reduces mineralized tissue-titanium interfacial strength. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 77(3), 478–486 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.D. Boyd, N. Korotkova, M.E. Grady, Adhesion of biofilms on titanium measured by laser-induced spallation. Exp. Mech. 1–10 (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A.M. Krachler, K. Orth, Targeting the bacteria-host interface: Strategies in anti-adhesion therapy. Virulence 4(4), 284–294 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. Kreth, J. Merritt, F. Qi, Bacterial and host interactions of oral Streptococci. DNA Cell Biol. 28(8), 397–403 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    W. Krzyściak, A. Jurczak, D. Kościelniak, B. Bystrowska, A. Skalniak, The virulence of Streptococcus mutans and the ability to form biofilms. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 33(4), 499–515 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    R.S. Jayesh, V. Dhinakarsamy, Osseointegration. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 7(Suppl 1), S226–S229 (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. Czekanska, M.J. Stoddart, R.G. Richards, J.S. Hayes, et al., Eur. Cell Mater. 24(4), 1–17 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Y.-Y. Chang, H.-L. Huang, Y.-C. Chen, J.-T. Hsu, T.-M. Shieh, M.-T. Tsai, Biological characteristics of the MG-63 human osteosarcoma cells on composite tantalum carbide/amorphous carbon films. PLoS One 9(4), e95590 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Niinomi, Mechanical properties of biomedical titanium alloys. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 243(1), 231–236 (1998) CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • James D. Boyd
    • 1
  • Natalia Korotkova
    • 2
  • Martha E. Grady
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Molecular and Cellular BiochemistryUniversity of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations