Effect of microbial adhesion on different esthetic implant materials over titanium- A newer approach towards dentistry

Main Article Content

Pooja Singh
Subhabrata Maiti
Deepak Nallaswamy
Smiline Girija AS


Dental implants, PEEK, PEKK, biofilm, peri-implantitis


Background: Biofilm development complications are common in implantology, accounting for one-quarter of all infections each year.To prevent these bacterial biofilms from forming, it is critical to investigate and measure bacteria adhesion to various surfaces.The current in vitro investigation aims at comparing PEEK and PEKK biofilm formation abilities for the use of these materials as alternatives to dental titanium and zirconia as conventional implant materials.
Materials and methods: Alloy material—titanium grade 5 (Ti-6Al-4V), ceramic material—yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP), polymer material—PEEK, and polymer material—PEKK (n=48) were investigated. The testing samples were inoculated with the prepared broth suspension, and were incubated at 37 °C for 48hrs.After incubation, the colonies were counted using a digital colony counter and the results were recorded as colony forming units/ml (cfu/ml). Samples were also tested for surface topography and contact angle before microbial study. The data was analyzed with paired t-test and one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) tests to compare replicate mean values between different dental material groups in each condition.
Results: The biofilm formation of the Ti-6Al-4V, regardless of the culture times or types of bacteria (S. mutans or E fecalis), was significantly higher than those of the other testing materials along with the value of surface roughness (p<0.05).
Conclusion: When compared to titanium alloys (Ti-6Al-4V) and zirconia-based ceramic materials(Y-TZP), PEKK and PEEK were much less conducive to biofilm formation, PEKK showing less adhesion than PEEK and hence can be used as alternative implant materials in aspect of biofilm formation.

Abstract 167 | PDF Downloads 166


1. Kim S, Kratchman S. Microsurgery in Endodontics. John Wiley & Sons; 2017. 256 p.
2. Spiekermann H, Donath K, Hassell TM, Jovanovic S, Richter EJ, English CE. Implantology [Internet]. Vol. 5, Implant Dentistry. 1996. p. 65. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199600510-00041
3. Vertucci V, Pacifici A, Ruggiero R, Pacifici L, Amantea M, Ruggiero R, et al. In vitro comparative study on the mechanical behavior of Zirconia and Polyetheretherketone in applied dental sciences. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2022 Dec;26(3 Suppl):106–14.
4. G S, Saurabh G. Titanium to Ceramic Dental Implants: A Short Communication [Internet]. Vol. 02, Dental Implants and Dentures: Open Access. 2017. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2572-4835.1000116
5. Xu X, He L, Zhu B, Li J, Li J. Advances in polymeric materials for dental applications [Internet]. Vol. 8, Polymer Chemistry. 2017. p. 807–23. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c6py01957a
6. Najeeb S, Zafar MS, Khurshid Z, Siddiqui F. Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics [Internet]. Vol. 60, Journal of Prosthodontic Research. 2016. p. 12–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2015.10.001
7. Saenz-Castillo D, Martín MI, Calvo S, Rodriguez-Lence F, Güemes A. Effect of processing parameters and void content on mechanical properties and NDI of thermoplastic composites [Internet]. Vol. 121, Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing. 2019. p. 308–20. Available from:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesa.2019.03.035
8. Ebnesajjad S. Handbook of Polymer Applications in Medicine and Medical Devices: 6. Adhesives for Medical and Dental Applications. Elsevier Inc. Chapters; 2013. 368 p.
9. Godbole SD, Chandak AV, Balwani TR. Poly Ether Ether Ketone (PEEK) Applications in Prosthodontics – A Review “Peek into PEEK at Peak” [Internet]. Vol. 9, Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2020. p. 3242–6. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.14260/jemds/2020/711
10. Kurtz SM, Devine JN. PEEK biomaterials in trauma, orthopedic, and spinal implants [Internet]. Vol. 28, Biomaterials. 2007. p. 4845–69. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.013
11. Zoidis P, Papathanasiou I, Polyzois G. The Use of a Modified Poly-Ether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK) as an Alternative Framework Material for Removable Dental Prostheses. A Clinical Report [Internet]. Vol. 25, Journal of Prosthodontics. 2016. p. 580–4. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12325
12. Malli Sureshbabu N, Selvarasu K, V JK, Nandakumar M, Selvam D. Concentrated Growth Factors as an Ingenious Biomaterial in Regeneration of Bony Defects after Periapical Surgery: A Report of Two Cases. Case Rep Dent. 2019 Jan 22;2019:7046203.
13. Ahad M, Gheena S. Awareness, attitude and knowledge about evidence based dentistry among the dental practitioner in Chennai city. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2016;9(11):1863.
14. PradeepKumar AR, Shemesh H, Jothilatha S, Vijayabharathi R, Jayalakshmi S, Kishen A. Diagnosis of Vertical Root Fractures in Restored Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Time-dependent Retrospective Cohort Study. J Endod. 2016 Aug;42(8):1175–80.
15. Jangid K, Alexander AJ, Jayakumar ND, Varghese S, Ramani P. Ankyloglossia with cleft lip: A rare case report. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2015 Nov;19(6):690–3.
16. Kumar A, Sherlin HJ, Ramani P, Natesan A, Premkumar P. Expression of CD 68, CD 45 and human leukocyte antigen-DR in central and peripheral giant cell granuloma, giant cell tumor of long bones, and tuberculous granuloma: An immunohistochemical study. Indian J Dent Res. 2015 May;26(3):295–303.
17. Manohar J, Abilasha R. A Study on the Knowledge of Causes and Prevalance of Pigmentation of Gingiva among Dental Students [Internet]. Vol. 10, Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development. 2019. p. 95. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2019.01859.x
18. Sekar D, Mani P, Biruntha M, Sivagurunathan P, Karthigeyan M. Dissecting the functional role of microRNA 21 in osteosarcoma. Cancer Gene Ther. 2019 Jul;26(7-8):179–82.
19. Girija SA, Jayaseelan VP, Arumugam P. Prevalence of VIM- and GIM-producing Acinetobacter baumannii from patients with severe urinary tract infection. Acta Microbiol Immunol Hung. 2018 Dec 1;65(4):539–50.
20. Maheswari TNU, Venugopal A, Sureshbabu NM, Ramani P. Salivary micro RNA as a potential biomarker in oral potentially malignant disorders: A systematic review. Ci Ji Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2018 Apr;30(2):55–60.
21. Subashri A, Maheshwari TNU. Knowledge and attitude of oral hygiene practice among dental students. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2016;9(11):1840.
22. Ponnanna AA, Maiti S, Rai N, Jessy P. Three-dimensional-Printed Malo Bridge: Digital Fixed Prosthesis for the Partially Edentulous Maxilla. Contemp Clin Dent. 2021 Dec 21;12(4):451–3.
23. Aparna J, Maiti S, Jessy P. Polyether ether ketone - As an alternative biomaterial for Metal Richmond crown-3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Conserv Dent. 2021 Nov-Dec;24(6):553–7.
24. Arora O, Ahmed N, Maiti S. Comparison of the marginal accuracy of metal copings fabricated by 3D-printed resin and milled polymethyl methacrylate - An study. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2022 Nov;13(Suppl 1):S238–42.
25. Shenoy A, Rajaraman V, Maiti S. Comparative analysis of various temporary computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing polymethyl methacrylate crown materials based on color stability, flexural strength, and surface roughness: An study. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2022 Nov;13(Suppl 1):S130–5.
26. Agarwal S, Ashok V, Maiti S, Agarwal V. Dentists’ Preference toward Fixed Versus Removable Implant Prosthesis on Edentulous Jaws to Improve Quality of Life. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 2022;33(1):83–9.
27. Ratner BD, Castner DG. Surface Modification of Polymeric Biomaterials. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013. 206 p.
28. De-la-Pinta I, Cobos M, Ibarretxe J, Montoya E, Eraso E, Guraya T, et al. Effect of biomaterials hydrophobicity and roughness on biofilmdevelopment [Internet]. Vol. 30, Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. 2019. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10856-019-6281-3
29. Barkarmo S, Longhorn D, Leer K, Johansson CB, Stenport V, Franco‐Tabares S, et al. Biofilm formation on polyetheretherketone and titanium surfaces [Internet]. Vol. 5, Clinical and Experimental Dental Research. 2019. p. 427–37. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cre2.205
30. Meza-Siccha AS, Aguilar-Luis MA, Silva-Caso W, Mazulis F, Barragan-Salazar C, del Valle-Mendoza J. In Vitro Evaluation of Bacterial Adhesion and Bacterial Viability of Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sanguinis, and Porphyromonas gingivalis on the Abutment Surface of Titanium and Zirconium Dental Implants [Internet]. Vol. 2019, International Journal of Dentistry. 2019. p. 1–5. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/4292976
31. Han A, Tsoi JKH, Rodrigues FP, Leprince JG, Palin WM. Bacterial adhesion mechanisms on dental implant surfaces and the influencing factors [Internet]. Vol. 69, International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives. 2016. p. 58–71. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2016.03.022
32. Wandiyanto JV, Truong VK, Al Kobaisi M, Juodkazis S, Thissen H, Bazaka O, et al. The Fate of Osteoblast-Like MG-63 Cells on Pre-Infected Bactericidal Nanostructured Titanium Surfaces [Internet]. Vol. 12, Materials. 2019. p. 1575. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma12101575
33. Martins R, Cestari TM, Arantes RVN, Santos PS, Taga R, Carbonari MJ, et al. Osseointegration of zirconia and titanium implants in a rabbit tibiae model evaluated by microtomography, histomorphometry and fluorochrome labeling analyses [Internet]. Vol. 53, Journal of Periodontal Research. 2018. p. 210–21. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jre.12508
34. Hahnel S, Wieser A, Lang R, Rosentritt M. Biofilm formation on the surface of modern implant abutment materials [Internet]. Vol. 26, Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2015. p. 1297–301. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.12454

Most read articles by the same author(s)