The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation.

Effective biofilm removal from surfaces in the mouth is a clinical challenge. Cavitation bubbles generated around a dental ultrasonic scaler are being investigated as a method to remove biofilms effectively. It is not known how parameters such as surface roughness and instrument distance from biofil...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: N Vyas, R L Sammons, S A Kuehne, C Johansson, V Stenport, Q X Wang, A D Walmsley
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2020-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236428
id doaj-6181555eafe246e28f2bc64180f353de
record_format Article
spelling doaj-6181555eafe246e28f2bc64180f353de2021-03-03T21:57:13ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032020-01-01157e023642810.1371/journal.pone.0236428The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation.N VyasR L SammonsS A KuehneC JohanssonV StenportQ X WangA D WalmsleyEffective biofilm removal from surfaces in the mouth is a clinical challenge. Cavitation bubbles generated around a dental ultrasonic scaler are being investigated as a method to remove biofilms effectively. It is not known how parameters such as surface roughness and instrument distance from biofilm affect the removal. We grew Strepotococcus sanguinis biofilms on coverslips and titanium discs with varying surface roughness (between 0.02-3.15 μm). Experimental studies were carried out for the biofilm removal using high speed imaging and image analysis to calculate the area of biofilm removed at varying ultrasonic scaler standoff distances from the biofilm. We found that surface roughness up to 2 μm does not adversely affect biofilm removal but a surface roughness of 3 μm caused less biofilm removal. The standoff distance also has different effects depending on the surface roughness but overall a distance of 1 mm is just as effective as a distance of 0.5 mm. The results show significant biofilm removal due to an ultrasonic scaler tip operating for only 2s versus 15-60s in previous studies. The technique developed for high speed imaging and image analysis of biofilm removal can be used to investigate physical biofilm disruption from biomaterial surfaces in other fields.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236428
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author N Vyas
R L Sammons
S A Kuehne
C Johansson
V Stenport
Q X Wang
A D Walmsley
spellingShingle N Vyas
R L Sammons
S A Kuehne
C Johansson
V Stenport
Q X Wang
A D Walmsley
The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation.
PLoS ONE
author_facet N Vyas
R L Sammons
S A Kuehne
C Johansson
V Stenport
Q X Wang
A D Walmsley
author_sort N Vyas
title The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation.
title_short The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation.
title_full The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation.
title_fullStr The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation.
title_full_unstemmed The effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation.
title_sort effect of standoff distance and surface roughness on biofilm disruption using cavitation.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2020-01-01
description Effective biofilm removal from surfaces in the mouth is a clinical challenge. Cavitation bubbles generated around a dental ultrasonic scaler are being investigated as a method to remove biofilms effectively. It is not known how parameters such as surface roughness and instrument distance from biofilm affect the removal. We grew Strepotococcus sanguinis biofilms on coverslips and titanium discs with varying surface roughness (between 0.02-3.15 μm). Experimental studies were carried out for the biofilm removal using high speed imaging and image analysis to calculate the area of biofilm removed at varying ultrasonic scaler standoff distances from the biofilm. We found that surface roughness up to 2 μm does not adversely affect biofilm removal but a surface roughness of 3 μm caused less biofilm removal. The standoff distance also has different effects depending on the surface roughness but overall a distance of 1 mm is just as effective as a distance of 0.5 mm. The results show significant biofilm removal due to an ultrasonic scaler tip operating for only 2s versus 15-60s in previous studies. The technique developed for high speed imaging and image analysis of biofilm removal can be used to investigate physical biofilm disruption from biomaterial surfaces in other fields.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236428
work_keys_str_mv AT nvyas theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT rlsammons theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT sakuehne theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT cjohansson theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT vstenport theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT qxwang theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT adwalmsley theeffectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT nvyas effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT rlsammons effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT sakuehne effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT cjohansson effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT vstenport effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT qxwang effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
AT adwalmsley effectofstandoffdistanceandsurfaceroughnessonbiofilmdisruptionusingcavitation
_version_ 1714814185487990784