Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27601281›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

A quantitative method to measure biofilm removal efficiency from complex biomaterial surfaces using SEM and image analysis.

N Vyas, R L Sammons, O Addison, H Dehghani, A D Walmsley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. iScience · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. NHHeliyon · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. How to study biofilms: technological advancements in clinical biofilm research.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

N VyasPhysical Sciences of Imaging for Biomedical Sciences (PSIBS) Doctoral Training Centre, College of Engineering &Physical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
R L SammonsSchool of Dentistry, Institute of Clinical Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Mill Pool Way, Birmingham, B5 7EG, UK.
O AddisonSchool of Dentistry, Institute of Clinical Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Mill Pool Way, Birmingham, B5 7EG, UK.
H DehghaniSchool of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
A D WalmsleySchool of Dentistry, Institute of Clinical Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Mill Pool Way, Birmingham, B5 7EG, UK.
University of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biofilm accumulation on biomaterial surfaces is a major health concern and significant research efforts are directed towards producing biofilm resistant surfaces and developing biofilm removal techniques. To accurately evaluate biofilm growth and disruption on surfaces, accurate methods which give quantitative information on biofilm area are needed, as current methods are indirect and inaccurate. We demonstrate the use of machine learning algorithms to segment biofilm from scanning electron microscopy images. A case study showing disruption of biofilm from rough dental implant surfaces using cavitation bubbles from an ultrasonic scaler is used to validate the imaging and analysis protocol developed. Streptococcus mutans biofilm was disrupted from sandblasted, acid etched (SLA) Ti discs and polished Ti discs. Significant biofilm removal occurred due to cavitation from ultrasonic scaling (p < 0.001). The mean sensitivity and specificity values for segmentation of the SLA surface images were 0.80 ± 0.18 and 0.62 ± 0.20 respectively and 0.74 ± 0.13 and 0.86 ± 0.09 respectively for polished surfaces. Cavitation has potential to be used as a novel way to clean dental implants. This imaging and analysis method will be of value to other researchers and manufacturers wishing to study biofilm growth and removal.

Indexed as

Biocompatible MaterialsBiofilmsMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningSurface PropertiesUltrasonicsBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

PMID27601281
PMCPMC5013386
OpenAlexW2512634955

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.