Polarization of Macrophages, Cellular Adhesion, and Spreading on Bacterially Contaminated Gold Nanoparticle-Coatings in Vitro.

Biomaterial-associated infections often arise from contaminating bacteria adhering to an implant surface that are introduced during surgical implantation and not effectively eradicated by antibiotic treatment. Whether or not infection develops from contaminating bacteria depends on an interplay between bacteria contaminating the biomaterial surface and tissue cells trying to integrate the surface with the aid of immune cells. The biomaterial surface plays a crucial role in defining the outcome of this race for the surface. Tissue integration is considered the best protection of a biomaterial implant against infectious bacteria. This paper aims to determine whether and how macrophages aid osteoblasts and human mesenchymal stem cells to adhere and spread over gold nanoparticle (GNP)-coatings with different hydrophilicity and roughness in the absence or presence of contaminating, adhering bacteria. All GNP-coatings had identical chemical surface composition, and water contact angles decreased with increasing roughness. Upon increasing the roughness of the GNP-coatings, the presence of contaminating Staphylococcus epidermidis in biculture with cells gradually decreased surface coverage by adhering and spreading cells, as in the absence of staphylococci. More virulent Staphylococcus aureus fully impeded cellular adhesion and spreading on smooth gold- or GNP-coatings, while Escherichia coli allowed minor cellular interaction. Murine macrophages in monoculture tended toward their pro-inflammatory "fighting" M1-phenotype on all coatings to combat the biomaterial, but in bicultures with contaminating, adhering bacteria, macrophages demonstrated Ym1 expression, indicative of polarization toward their anti-inflammatory "fix-and-repair" M2-phenotype. Damage repair of cells by macrophages improved cellular interactions on intermediately hydrophilic/rough (water contact angle 30 deg/surface roughness 118 nm) GNP-coatings in the presence of contaminating, adhering Gram-positive staphylococci but provided little aid in the presence of Gram-negative E. coli. Thus, the merits on GNP-coatings to influence the race for the surface and prevent biomaterial-associated infection critically depend on their hydrophilicity/roughness and the bacterial strain involved in contaminating the biomaterial surface.

In vivo biofilm formation on stainless steel bonded retainers during different oral health-care regimens.

Retention wires permanently bonded to the anterior teeth are used after orthodontic treatment to prevent the teeth from relapsing to pre-treatment positions. A disadvantage of bonded retainers is biofilm accumulation on the wires, which produces a higher incidence of gingival recession, increased pocket depth and bleeding on probing. This study compares in vivo biofilm formation on single-strand and multi-strand retention wires with different oral health-care regimens. Two-centimetre wires were placed in brackets that were bonded to the buccal side of the first molars and second premolars in the upper arches of 22 volunteers. Volunteers used a selected toothpaste with or without the additional use of a mouthrinse containing essential oils. Brushing was performed manually. Regimens were maintained for 1 week, after which the wires were removed and the oral biofilm was collected to quantify the number of organisms and their viability, determine the microbial composition and visualize the bacteria by electron microscopy. A 6-week washout period was employed between regimens. Biofilm formation was reduced on single-strand wires compared with multi-strand wires; bacteria were observed to adhere between the strands. The use of antibacterial toothpastes marginally reduced the amount of biofilm on both wire types, but significantly reduced the viability of the biofilm organisms. Additional use of the mouthrinse did not result in significant changes in biofilm amount or viability. However, major shifts in biofilm composition were induced by combining a stannous fluoride- or triclosan-containing toothpaste with the mouthrinse. These shifts can be tentatively attributed to small changes in bacterial cell surface hydrophobicity after the adsorption of the toothpaste components, which stimulate bacterial adhesion to the hydrophobic oil, as illustrated for a Streptococcus mutans strain.

Biofilm formation on stainless steel and gold wires for bonded retainers in vitro and in vivo and their susceptibility to oral antimicrobials.

OBJECTIVE: Bonded retainers are used in orthodontics to maintain treatment result. Retention wires are prone to biofilm formation and cause gingival recession, bleeding on probing and increased pocket depths near bonded retainers. In this study, we compare in vitro and in vivo biofilm formation on different wires used for bonded retainers and the susceptibility of in vitro biofilms to oral antimicrobials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Orthodontic wires were exposed to saliva, and in vitro biofilm formation was evaluated using plate counting and live/dead staining, together with effects of exposure to toothpaste slurry alone or followed by antimicrobial mouthrinse application. Wires were also placed intra-orally for 72 h in human volunteers and undisturbed biofilm formation was compared by plate counting and live/dead staining, as well as by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis for compositional differences in biofilms. RESULTS: Single-strand wires attracted only slightly less biofilm in vitro than multi-strand wires. Biofilms on stainless steel single-strand wires however, were much more susceptible to antimicrobials from toothpaste slurries and mouthrinses than on single-strand gold wires and biofilms on multi-strand wires. Also, in vivo significantly less biofilm was found on single-strand than on multi-strand wires. Microbial composition of biofilms was more dependent on the volunteer involved than on wire type. CONCLUSIONS: Biofilms on single-strand stainless steel wires attract less biofilm in vitro and are more susceptible to antimicrobials than on multi-strand wires. Also in vivo, single-strand wires attract less biofilm than multi-strand ones. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Use of single-strand wires is preferred over multi-strand wires, not because they attract less biofilm, but because biofilms on single-strand wires are not protected against antimicrobials as in crevices and niches as on multi-strand wires.