ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Influence of alumina shot blasting induced roughness on bacterial adhesion to titanium.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Bone Compatibility of Experimental Ti-Ag and Ti-Cu Alloy Dental Implants in a Beagle Dog Model.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Fabrication of Superhydrophobic Micro-Nanostructures on Pristine SLM-Ti Surfaces.Micromachines · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the influence of different surface roughness levels of titanium disks, induced by alumina blasting, on bacterial adhesion. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwelve different surface roughnesses, ranging from 0.01 μm to 6 μm, were produced using a shot blasting technique with varying alumina particle sizes. Surface roughness was measured using confocal interferometry, wettability was assessed by contact angle measurements, and compressive residual stress was evaluated by X-ray diffraction. For each roughness level, 720 samples were used to culture Porphyromonas gingivalis (Gram-negative, anaerobic) and Streptococcus sanguinis (Gram-positive, anaerobic). The colonies formed per unit area, the ratio of dead bacteria to total bacteria, and the metabolic activity for each roughness ere determined.
resultsThe polished surface (Sa = 0.01 μm) showed the highest bacterial adhesion for both strains compared to the 0.13 μm roughness, which exhibited a antibacterial activity, likely due to nanostructured peaks causing bacterial membrane disruption. For surface roughness values between 0.5 and 3 μm, Gram-positive bacterial colonies increased approximately threefold. When the roughness exceeded 3.8 μm, colony formation rose fivefold. In contrast, Gram-negative bacteria did not exhibit statistically significant changes in adhesion between 0.5 and 2 μm. However, beginning at 2.6 μm, a marked increase was observed, with colony numbers reaching nearly four times the control at 6 μm. The ratio of dead bacteria and metabolic activity confirms bacterial colonization studies (CFU/mm
conclusionsSurface roughness significantly influenced bacterial colonization on titanium implants. An antibacterial effect was observed at a roughness of 0.13 μm. Bacterial adhesion increased moderately up to 2.1 μm for Gram-negative and 3 μm for Gram-positive strains, followed by a sharp rise at higher roughness values. An optimal surface roughness range of 1 to 2 μm appears to promote favorable osteoblastic response while minimizing bacterial adhesion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results enhance our understanding of how implant surface roughness influences bacterial adhesion. This knowledge could contribute to the development of clinical approaches designed to lower the risk of peri-implantitis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.