Next Article in Journal
Molecular Identification of Babesia spp. and Anaplasma marginale in Water Buffaloes in Veracruz and Tabasco, Mexico: A Retrospective Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Mixed Fungal Biofilms: From Mycobiota to Devices, a New Challenge on Clinical Practice
Previous Article in Journal
Applications of Probiotic-Based Multi-Components to Human, Animal and Ecosystem Health: Concepts, Methodologies, and Action Mechanisms
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bacterial Interactions in the Context of Chronic Wound Biofilm: A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/microorganisms10091701
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Surface Roughness of Deciduous and Permanent Tooth Enamel on Bacterial Adhesion

by
Bernardo Teutle-Coyotecatl
1,
Rosalía Contreras-Bulnes
1,*,
Laura Emma Rodríguez-Vilchis
1,
Rogelio José Scougall-Vilchis
1,
Ulises Velazquez-Enriquez
1,
Argelia Almaguer-Flores
2 and
Jesús Angel Arenas-Alatorre
3
1
Facultad de Odontología, Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados en Odontología (CIEAO), Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Toluca, Estado de México C.P. 50130, Mexico
2
Laboratorio de Biointerfases, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Delegación Coyoacán, Ciudad de México C.P. 04510, Mexico
3
Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Delegación Coyoacán, Ciudad de México C.P. 04510, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2022, 10(9), 1701; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms10091701
Submission received: 29 July 2022 / Revised: 12 August 2022 / Accepted: 18 August 2022 / Published: 24 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biofilm-Related Infections in Healthcare)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The adhesion of some bacteria has been attributed to critical levels of roughness in hard tissues, which increases the risk of developing caries. The objective of this work was to assess the effect of deciduous and permanent tooth enamel surface roughness on bacterial adhesion. One hundred and eight samples of deciduous and permanent enamel were divided into two groups (n = 54). G1_DE deciduous enamel and G2_PE permanent enamel. The surface roughness was measured by profilometry and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Subsequently, the evaluation of bacterial adherence was carried out in triplicate by means of the XTT cell viability test. Additionally, bacterial adhesion was observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). The average values of the micrometric roughness in both groups were similar; however, in the nanometric scale they presented significant differences. Additionally, the G1_DE group showed the highest amount of adhered S. mutans and S. sanguinis compared to the G2_EP group. Although the roughness of deciduous and permanent enamel showed contrasting results according to the evaluation technique (area and scale of analysis), bacterial adhesion was greater in deciduous enamel; hence, enamel roughness may not be a determining factor in the bacterial adhesion phenomenon.

1. Introduction

Dental enamel is known to be the hardest tissue in the human body and is composed of 92–96% inorganic matter or mineral phase, 3% water, and 1% organic material by weight [1,2]. This tissue presents a complex hierarchical assembly that goes from the nanoscale to the microscale and possesses anisotropic properties [3,4]. In general, the topography of any surface will take the form of a series of peaks and valleys, which may vary in both height and spacing [5]. This can be characterized by a set of parameters (roughness) that give information about the height and distribution of the features on the surface, but it varies enormously according to the measurement scale chosen. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) and optical and stylus profilometers are methods commonly used to characterize it [6]. Specifically, in dental enamel, the topography is given by its microstructure, represented by hydroxyapatite crystals arranged in prisms or rods that create a wide variety of structures and morphologies [7,8]. The enamel surface of erupted and functional teeth may be irregular due to structural variations, which are a consequence of the occlusal function or the oral environment condition. In addition, deciduous enamel shows smoother surfaces than permanent enamel [9].
The effect of hard tissue surface roughness on microbial retention is a complex and controversial phenomenon. For a long time, the literature has stated that the roughness of intraoral hard surfaces has a great influence on the retention of oral microorganisms and that an increase in surface roughness results in a faster colonization of surfaces and a faster maturation of plaque, leading to an increased risk of caries [10]. Caries is a biofilm-mediated, sugar-driven, multifactorial, dynamic disease resulting in the phasic demineralization and remineralization of dental hard tissues [11]. To date, dental caries in patients with primary or mixed dentition is a major public health problem since it is still the most prevalent chronic disease. In this sense, the Global Burden of Untreated Caries reported that untreated caries in deciduous teeth was the 10th most prevalent condition, affecting 621 million people worldwide (9%); in addition, untreated caries in permanent teeth affected 2.4 billion people worldwide (35%) [12].
On the other hand, bacterial adhesion is the first step of biofilm formation; that phenomenon can be influenced by the surface roughness because it provides a greater surface area for bacterial adhesion and protects microorganisms from shear force [13,14]. The initial colonization process is dominated by oral streptococci [15], in which we find Streptococcus sanguinis, considered as an early colonizer, and non-mutans streptococci [16,17], as well as Streptococcus mutans, the principal pathogenic agent in caries [18] and early childhood caries [19] due to its ability to metabolize sucrose into lactic acid to synthesize acids in a low pH environment and produce extra- and intra-cellular polysaccharides [18]. Interspecies interaction of oral streptococci plays an important role in caries development [15].
Finally, the adhesion of some bacteria has been attributed to critical levels of roughness on hard tissues. The irregularities protect bacteria from shear forces and allow them to come into contact with the surface and form biofilms, thus increasing the risk of developing caries. The deciduous and permanent enamel present morphological differences that can affect their topography and the development of caries. The lack of studies that jointly describe the effect of surface roughness on bacterial adhesion creates the need to conduct novel studies on both tissues using similar techniques in order to elucidate the phenomenon. Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess the effect of deciduous and permanent enamel surface roughness on bacterial adhesion. To date, no similar investigation has been carried out. This study’s two null hypotheses were that there are differences in (a) surface roughness and (b) adhesion of some oral streptococci between deciduous and permanent enamel.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Tooth Selection and Sample Preparation

The present study is based on a previous assessment of deciduous (n = 54, G1_DE) and permanent (n = 54, G2_PE) dental enamel samples. Primary incisors and premolars without decay, fluorosis, dental fractures, or fillings and extracted from non-bruxed healthy young patients (aged 6 to 17 years) were collected under informed consent. The study was submitted to an Ethical Committee Board and approved (CEICIEAO-2021-019). The included teeth were cleaned and stored at 4 °C in 0.2% thymol solution prior to analysis. Subsequently, enamel fluorescence was evaluated using two devices (DIAGNOdent® (DI-AGNOdent®, KaVo, Biberach, Germany) and The Spectra™ (Air Techniques, Melville, NY, USA)); only teeth with healthy enamel were included in the study. The crown of each tooth was separated from its root by means of a diamond disk (BesQual, New York, NY, USA) mounted on a low-speed motor (micromotor STRONG 207S-106, Saeshin Precision Co., Ltd., Daegu, Korea) under constant irrigation to avoid dehydration. Then, the crown was fixed to a glass slide with thermoplasticized epoxy resin (Allied High Tech Products, Rancho Dominguez, CA, USA). Subsequently, enamel blocks (3 × 3 × 1 mm) from the buccal and lingual surface were extracted with a diamond blade (South Bay Technology, Inc., San Clemente, CA, USA) mounted on a cutter (South Bay Technology, Inc., San Clemente, CA, USA) under irrigation. Finally, all samples were rinsed with deionized water and dried at room temperature for the baseline surface roughness evaluation [20,21].

2.2. Surface Roughness Analysis

Surface roughness of deciduous and permanent enamel was evaluated using two different scaling techniques.

2.3. Profilometry

The surface roughness of the enamel blocks was evaluated by a mechanical profilometer instrument (Mitutoyo Surftest SJ-301, Tokyo, Japan). Surface roughness values were obtained using the 5 µm radius diamond tip with a cut off value of 0.08 mm (λc), a transverse length of 0.5 mm, a speed of 0.25 mm/sec, and a Gaussian Filter. This procedure was performed on three different locations at the center of the samples [20,21]. For each sample, the mean values of the parameters Ra (the average distance from the profile to the mean line over the length of assessment) and Rz (the peak-to-valley values of five equal measures within the profile) were obtained under ISO 4287-1997 [22]

2.4. Atomic Force Microscopy

Three representative specimens randomly selected samples from each group were evaluated through an atomic force microscope (NaioAFM, Nanosurf, Liestal, Switzerland) using a previous methodology [23] with some modifications. A total of five representative images with a 50 × 50 μm area were acquired in tapping mode for each specimen at each location. All AFM images were processed with the Naio control software version 3.10.0 (Nanosurf, Liestal, Switzerland); the Ra and Rz parameters were determined in nanometers (nm) across independent scans areas per specimen and expressed in micrometers (µm) as mean ± standard deviation to compare these results with the ones obtained using the profilometry.

2.5. Bacterial Adhesion Test

The S. mutans ATCC 25,175 and S. sanguinis ATCC 10,556 strains used in this study were grown separately on Hemin–Vitamin K (HK)-enriched agar plates (brain/heart infusion agar (BBL; Becton, Dickinson, NJ, USA), trypticase soy agar (BBL; Becton, Dickinson), and yeast extract (BBL; Becton, Dickinson), supplemented with 5 µg/mL hemin (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), 0.3 µg/mL menadione (Sigma-Aldrich), and 5% defibrinated sheep blood(Microlab, Mexico City, Mexico) at 37° C for 7 days, under anaerobic conditions (80% N2, 10% CO2 and 10% H2) [20].
Before carrying out the bacterial adhesion test, the enamel samples were washed for 10 min and sterilized at 120 °C for 15 min [20,21,24,25,26].
Bacterial growth from 7-day cultures of each strain was harvested and the optical density (OD) in each tube was adjusted at 1–600 nm in a spectrophotometer (Eppendorf BioPhotometer D30, Hamburg, Germany). Sterile enamel blocks were placed individually into a 96-well cell-culture plate with a flat bottom (Costar Cat# 3599, Corning, NY, USA). A total of 108 cells/mL suspension of each reference strain was individually added, in a total volume of 200 µL. Plates were incubated for 24 h at 37° C under anaerobic conditions using Hemin–Vitamin K (HK)-enriched broth media (5 µg/mL hemin and 0.3 µg/mL menadione) to allow bacterial adhesion on the enamel surfaces. All the experiments were performed using three samples per bacterium and group.
After the anaerobic incubation time, each enamel sample was washed three times with Hemin–Vitamin K (HK)-enriched broth media to eliminate non-adherent bacteria and determine the number of adhered bacteria by means of the XTT cell viability assay [20,21].

2.6. XTT Cell Viability Assay

Bacterial adhesion on dental enamel was evaluated using XTT Cell viability kit assay (Cell Signaling Technology® #9095, Danvers, MA, USA); 50 µL of the XTT reagent, and 100 µL of the Hemin–Vitamin K (HK)-enriched broth media were added to each well and incubated under anaerobic conditions in the dark for 4 h at 37 °C. After incubation, 100 µL of all solutions were transferred onto a new sterile microtiter plate and analyzed at 450 nm (reference wavelength, 620 nm) using the multi-mode microplate reader FilterMax™ F5 (Molecular Devices, San Jose, CA, USA). Finally, the number of cells/mL was obtained with the transformation of absorbance values through a standard calibration curve [20,21].

2.7. Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy

LIVE/DEAD® BacLight™ Bacterial Viability Kits (Invitrogen Ltd., Paisley, UK) [20,21] were used for microscopical analysis of bacterial adhesion. After anaerobic incubation, one sample per group was gently removed from a 96-well plate, rinsed, and stained with LIVE/DEAD® BacLight™ [20]. The stained bacteria were evaluated in the confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) Olympus Fluoview FV 1000 Spectroscopic Confocal System (CLSM FV 1000 Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) with a UPLSAPO 100× O NA: 1.4 lens (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) immediately after the staining procedures [21].

2.8. Scanning Electron Microscopy

After anaerobic incubation, specimens (one per group) were fixed in 2.0% glutaraldehyde for 24 h at room temperature; afterwards, they were washed with phosphate-buffered solution (pH 7.4) and dehydrated in a graded series of ethanol (20 to 100%). Then, samples were vacuum dried and sputter-coated with gold. Finally, samples were examined in an SEM JEOL (JEOL-JSM-6610LV, JEOL USA, Inc., Peabody, MA, USA) at 20 kV [20,21] in order to obtain high-resolution images of the bacterial cells.

2.9. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed by SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) program, version 24 (SPSS IBM., New York, NY, USA). Through a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, the data distribution was evaluated, and the comparisons of roughness values (Ra and Rz) between two groups were performed by pairwise Mann–Whitney U test. Additionally, the number of bacteria of the same species that adhered to deciduous and permanent enamel were determined by the pairwise Mann–Whitney U test; p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Surface Roughness

The average values for the roughness parameters Ra and Rz by each characterization method are shown in Table 1.
Profilometry: the group G1_DE showed the minimum values of surface roughness with no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05).
AFM: the group G2_PE exhibited the lowest values of surfaces roughness with significant differences (p < 0.05).
Representative AFM images are shown in Figure 1. They reflect the surface topographies of the enamel of deciduous and permanent enamel in a 50 × 50 µm area by AFM. The surface of the deciduous enamel showed less marked microporosities, wear grooves and homogeneous scratches in comparison to the permanent enamel.

3.2. XTT Cell Viability Assay

The number of bacterial cells attached to the enamel samples is shown in Table 2. The G1_DE group showed the highest amount of S. mutans and S. sanguinis adhered compared to the G2_PE group.

3.3. CLSM Observations

Typical live/dead confocal images of biofilm staining formed on deciduous and permanent enamel surfaces are presented in Figure 2. The image series confirms, qualitatively, the differences in bacterial adhesion determined by the XTT cell viability assay. The deciduous enamel presented greater amounts of adhered bacteria (S. mutans and S. sanguinis) than permanent enamel; in addition, S. sanguinis was the bacterium that had more adherence to both substrates. The live cells can be seen in green color; they were scattered in all the substrates tested.

3.4. SEM Observations

Figure 3 shows representative micrographs of S. mutans and S. sanguinis that adhered to the deciduous and permanent enamel. At 5000× magnification, the deciduous and permanent enamel surfaces can be seen with a large amount of disseminated oral streptococci covering them. The micrographs qualitatively validate the results from the XTT cell viability assay.

4. Discussion

The surface roughness of deciduous and permanent enamel was evaluated using both a profilometer and an AFM. The results yielded by the two different devices were presented and compared. Additionally, the adhesion of oral streptococci was also evaluated.
The enamel samples were not grounded or mechanically treated to keep the ultrastructure of both substrates intact. Therefore, we could observe the influence of the surface per se on bacterial adhesion, since permanent and deciduous human teeth have a perfectly enamel smooth surface [27]. SEM and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) images of deciduous and permanent enamel showed smooth surfaces with little areas of irregularities, furrows, and unevenness of variable depth [9,27]. In addition, SEM micrographs of caries-free bicuspid teeth have shown areas of closed and exposed prisms as well as natural fractures [28]; those of the primary mandibular central incisors exhibit smooth surfaces with some grooves [29].

4.1. Surface Roughness

In order to carry out an exhaustive evaluation of the surface roughness of deciduous and permanent enamel at different scales, two instruments were used. On one hand, the profilometer was selected since it is an instrument that has a large dimensional scale capable of measuring rough surfaces [30]. On the other hand, the AFM was used, because it is a suitable microscopic method to analyze biological objects at nanoscale under natural conditions (no exhaustive preparation) [31].
The results obtained by profilometry showed that both deciduous and permanent enamel presented similar roughness, which is why the first null hypothesis was rejected, despite deciduous enamel presenting slightly lower roughness values (−19%). The low surface roughness observed on deciduous enamel may be due to the presence of a prismless enamel that covers all healthy deciduous teeth [32,33,34].
Lucchese et al. [9] illustrated a method of SEM digital image processing that is able to quantify and discriminate the morphological characteristics of deciduous and permanent tooth enamel by means of a digital processed algorithm, such as the roughness index (RI). They found that permanent enamel surface had RI values higher than deciduous enamel. As can be observed, their results differ from ours; this can be attributed to the use of a different surface roughness evaluation method.
Regarding the outcomes derived from the AFM height scans, these results showed that deciduous tooth enamel significantly doubles the roughness values of permanent enamel. Some chemical and histological differences between primary and permanent teeth, such as lower mineralization, higher porosity, and high organic content of primary teeth [35,36], makes the enamel less hard [37] and more susceptible to demineralization and wear. Furthermore, according to some authors, tooth brushing damages deciduous enamel [38,39]. All the reasons stated above could be the cause of deciduous enamel presenting greater nanoscale roughness. In addition, it should be noted that deciduous teeth have spent their entire useful life cycle in the mouth under certain deleterious conditions that could accentuate their surface roughness, while the included permanent teeth in this study have been extracted for orthodontic reasons in young patients.
The results obtained through nanoprofilometry by AFM must be interpreted rationally and cannot be generalized since they were taken from micrometric areas and can increase proportionally when the size of the area to be evaluated increases [40]. Furthermore, comparisons of the surface roughness values of deciduous and permanent enamel obtained with the profilometer showed no statistically significant difference. However, significant differences were detected using the AFM. It is known that the different surface roughness values obtained from the same specimens may be a consequence of differences between the measurement sensitivity and operating mechanisms of the instruments employed (profilometer and AFM) [41]. On the other hand, the surface texture is a complex variable, and it is relatively simple to understand why many comparisons give highly variable results with the same surface [42].
To date, there are not enough studies that coincide with the results found because there are different techniques used to measure the surface roughness of the deciduous and permanent enamel. In addition, the conflicting data reported in the few available studies may be due to factors such as the variations between individual teeth, type, age, and ethnicity, region of tooth collection, the number of teeth analyzed, and the methodology employed by the researchers [2].
Regarding the qualitative evaluation of the deciduous and permanent enamel via the AFM images, it was observed that both substrates presented a typical morphology of healthy enamel as described in the literature [31,43]. Additionally, the deciduous enamel surface exhibited a greater amount of shallow or deep grooves of variable amplitude and irregular direction in comparison with permanent enamel. Those grooves have been reported by Hegedüs et al. [31] as sketches. The presence of grooves in both tissues has been attributed to the abrasion process present in erupted teeth due to tooth-brushing, diet, or certain habits [44], as well as the progressive changes that a tooth undergoes during life.

4.2. XTT Cell-Viability Assay

The direct evaluation of bacterial adhesion to the substrates studied was carried out using an XTT cell-viability assay, which is a colorimetric method for measuring metabolic activity and vitality through the reduction of the yellow salt XTT to a colored formazan product by dehydrogenases of metabolically active cells. Moreover, early colonizers (S. sanguinis) of the oral cavity were used in this task, since they play a key role in the adhesion process by adhering directly to the surface, facilitating the adhesion of the later colonizer (S. mutans).
The results obtained from the XTT cell viability test showed a marked adhesion of both streptococcal strains in the deciduous enamel compared to the permanent enamel under the same growth conditions. Probably the high content of organic material and the presence of abundant micro-porosities in the deciduous enamel [27,44] are the cause of this phenomena. Additionally, other factors like hydrophobicity and charge of dental enamel have a significant influence on the extent of bacterial adhesion [45]. In this study, the bacterial adhesion in both types of dental enamel was different; therefore, the second hypothesis was accepted.
Greater adhesion of S. sanguinis was found on both surfaces evaluated, despite not having been inoculated together. It has been reported that S. sanguinis (initial colonizer) presents a greater adhesion force to dental enamel in comparison with S. mutans (cariogenic bacteria) [46]. Moreover, S. sanguinis is surrounded by fibers with hair-like structures or clusters of fibrous hair [47] and possesses sialic acid lectins that can facilitate binding to hydroxyapatite [48]; such characteristics could contribute to the high adhesion of this microorganism to dental enamel.
The high affinity of S. sanguinis to both deciduous and permanent tooth enamel may be beneficial because both microorganisms have an antagonistic relationship [49] S. sanguinis uses H2O2 to compete with S. mutans, and bacteriocin of S. mutans can inhibit S. sanguinis; for this reason, when there are high quantities of S. sanguinis in the mouth, the colonization of S. mutans is avoided. Thus, high amounts of S. sanguinis have also been found in caries-free children [50,51]; hence, S. sanguinis could play a role as a “designer bacteria” that reduces the cariogenicity of the biofilms on enamel surface [23].
Despite S. mutans adherence in minor amounts to deciduous and permanent enamel, the values obtained in this research work exceed by thousands of percent the amount of mutans streptococci established as a caries risk in children (106 colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL)) [16]. Although the CFU/mL of saliva is not comparable with the CFU/mg of dental plaque or adhered cells/mL on the enamel, the caries risk values serve as a reference parameter to monitor the number of bacteria attached to the substrate studied.
As observed, deciduous teeth are more vulnerable to caries because they can be more colonized by S. mutans. Furthermore, they present differences in their chemical composition and their physical properties, including thinner, softer enamel that is more vulnerable to dissolution by cariogenic acids [52], Therefore, greater emphasis should be placed on establishing preventive strategies therapies at a very early age. The establishment of good oral hygiene habits, as well as the effective use of fluoridated pastes or topical fluoride, could minimize caries risk. Fluorine intervenes in the metabolism of the bacteria present in the biofilm and makes tooth enamel more resistant to acid attack.

4.3. CLSM Observations

According to the CLSM findings, deciduous enamel had highest amounts of live bacteria scattered throughout its surface. Live bacteria are seen in green color due to the penetration of the small molecule STYO 9 present in the LIVE/DEAD® stain, which is capable of penetrating vital cells [53]. The dye mentioned above has been used to observed oral streptococci on deciduous and permanent enamel [20,21].

4.4. SEM Observations

As expected, in accordance with the XTT cell-viability assay results, SEM images showed a higher adhesion of bacteria on deciduous enamel than permanent enamel. This means that deciduous enamel is more prone to be colonized by the microorganisms studied. Specifically, S.mutans was observed in the bacillary way and as a single, double, or triple cell, without forming its classic chains. It is well-known that the bacillary way is due to its cell-division phase, its original morphology [54], and the acidity of its culture medium [55]; on the other hand, the absence of its classic morphology is a consequence of the anaerobic conditions in which it is cultured [56].
On one hand, it seems that the micrometric surfaces roughness of deciduous and permanent enamel is not an influential factor for bacterial adhesion, because the micrometric roughness values in deciduous enamel are similar to those found in permanent enamel; therefore, the chemical composition and other physical properties of deciduous and permanent tooth enamel could play a prominent role in bacterial adhesion. On the other hand, it seems that the nanoscale roughness of the deciduous enamel did influence the adhesion of streptococci, since there was a statistical difference between the nanoscale roughness of the deciduous enamel versus the permanent one. The available literature suggests that nanoscale surface roughness and topography may exert a greater influence on bacterial adhesion [5,57]. Further, it has been found that enamel microscale morphology may significantly alter the direct adhesion forces of bacteria [58].
Finally, according to an exhaustive review of the relevant scientific literature, there are no previous studies that have investigated the effect of roughness surface of intact deciduous and permanent enamel on bacterial adhesion, which precludes possibility of comparison and therefore discussion with similar studies; although this is a limitation of the study, at the same time, it opens a door in the field of bacterial adhesion on the surfaces of intact human dental enamel. Additional limitations are related to the in vitro design, which cannot perfectly simulate the conditions found in the oral cavity, and the small size of the sample due to the complexity, time spent, and costs of the methods employed for the roughness and microbiological analysis.
Further AFM studies could deepen the analysis of the surface roughness in deciduous and permanent dental enamel using more roughness parameters as well as evaluation of bacterial adhesion when wild-type strains of streptococci are grown. The use of fresh bacterial strains in microbiological tests would determine if the bacteria preserve the ability to adhere to intact enamel tooth.

5. Conclusions

Bacterial adhesion was greater in deciduous enamel; hence, enamel roughness may not be a determining factor in the bacterial adhesion phenomenon.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.T.-C. and R.C.-B.; methodology, R.J.S.-V., A.A.-F.; investigation, L.E.R.-V.; validation, U.V.-E. and J.A.A.-A.; formal analysis, L.E.R.-V.; investigation, B.T.-C.; resources, and data curation, L.E.R.-V.; writing—original draft preparation, B.T.-C. and R.C.-B.; writing—review and editing, U.V.-E.; visualization, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition, R.C.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the Consejo Mexiquense de Ciencia y Tecnología (COMECYT) (grant “Cátedras COMECYT-2021”; Approval sheet: CAT2021-0035).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Research Ethics Committee at the Dental Research and Advances Studies Center, School of Dentistry at the Autonomous University of the State of Mexico (CEICIEAO-2021-019), date of approval 19 March 2021.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent from the parents was obtained for each child included in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

To the University of the State of Mexico (UAEM) and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) for supporting this research; especially to Lizzeth Aguillón Sol for the AFM images; Karina Jiménez Durán for the CLSM images; Jacqueline Cañetas Ortega, Manuel Aguilar Franco and Diego Quintero Vargas for the SEM images to Engr. Emilio Ramírez Rodríguez for his support in editing the text.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Skinner, H.C.W. Biominerals. Mineral. Mag. 2005, 69, 621–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. De Menezes Oliveira, M.A.; Torres, C.P.; Gomes-Silva, J.M.; Chinelatti, M.A.; De Menezes, F.C.; Palma-Dibb, R.G.; Borsatto, M.C. Microstructure and mineral composition of dental enamel of permanent and deciduous teeth. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2010, 73, 572–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cui, F.Z.; Ge, J. New observations of the hierarchical structure of human enamel, from nanoscale to microscale. J. Tissue. Eng. Regen. Med. 2007, 1, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. White, S.N.; Luo, W.; Paine, M.L.; Fong, H.; Sarikaya, M.; Snead, M.L. Biological organization of hydroxyapatite crystallites into a fibrous continuum toughens and controls anisotropy in human enamel. J. Dent. Res. 2001, 80, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Whitehead, K.A.; Verran, J. The effect of surface topography on the retention of microorganisms. Trans. IChemE Part. C. 2006, 84, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pacha-Olivenza, M.Á.; Tejero, R.; Fernández-Calderón, M.C.; Anitua, E.; Troya, M.; González-Martín, M.L. Relevance of topographic parameters on the adhesion and proliferation of human gingival fibroblasts and oral bacterial strains. Biomed. Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 8456342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Radlanski, R.J. Micromorphological features of human dental enamel. In Dental Anthropology; Alt, K.W., Rösing, F.W., Teschler-Nicola, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1998; pp. 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ten Cate, A.R. Oral Histology: Development, Structure and Function, 3rd ed.; Mosby: St. Louis, MO, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lucchese, A.; Storti, E. Morphological characteristics of primary enamel surfaces versus permanent enamel surfaces: SEM digital analysis. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2011, 12, 179–183. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bollen, C.M.; Lambrechts, P.; Quirynen, M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: A review of the literature. Dent. Mater. 1997, 13, 258–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pitts, N.B.; Zero, D.T.; Marsh, P.D.; Ekstrand, K.; Weintraub, J.A.; Ramos-Gomez, F.; Tagami, J.; Twetman, S.; Tsakos, G.; Ismail, A. Dental caries. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2017, 3, 17030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Kassebaum, N.J.; Bernabé, E.; Dahiya, M.; Bhandari, B.; Murray, C.J.; Marcenes, W. Global burden of untreated caries: A systematic review and metaregression. J. Dent. Res. 2015, 94, 650–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Song, F.; Koo, H.; Ren, D. Effects of material properties on bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. J. Dent. Res. 2015, 94, 1027–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Teughels, W.; Van Assche, N.; Sliepen, I.; Quirynen, M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 2006, 17 (Suppl. S2), S68–S81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kreth, J.; Merritt, J.; Qi, F. Bacterial and Host Interactions of Oral Streptococci. DNA Cell Biol. 2009, 28, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. van Houte, J. Role of micro-organisms in caries etiology. J. Dent. Res. 1994, 73, 672–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Seow, W.K. Biological mechanisms of early childhood caries. Community Dent. Oral. Epidemiol. 1998, 26, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Lemos, J.A.; Palmer, S.R.; Zeng, L.; Wen, Z.T.; Kajfasz, J.K.; Freires, I.A.; Abranches, J.; Brady, L.J. The biology of Streptococcus mutans. Microbiol. Spectr. 2019, 7, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tanzer, J.M.; Livingston, J.; Thompson, A.M. The microbiology of primary dental caries in humans. J. Dent. Educ. 2001, 65, 1028–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Teutle-Coyotecatl, B.; Contreras-Bulnes, R.; Scougall-Vilchis, R.J.; Almaguer-Flores, A.; García-Pérez, V.I.; Rodríguez-Vilchis, L.E.; Arenas-Alatorre, J.A. Adhesion of Streptococcus mutans and Streptococcus sanguinis on Er: YAG laser irradiated dental enamel: Effect of surface roughness. Photomed. Laser. Surg. 2018, 36, 660–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Teutle-Coyotecatl, B.; Contreras-Bulnes, R.; Scougall-Vilchis, R.J.; Almaguer-Flores, A.; Rodríguez-Vilchis, L.E.; Velazquez-Enriquez, U.; Alatorre, J. Effect of Er: YAG laser irradiation on deciduous enamel roughness and bacterial adhesion: An in vitro study. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2019, 82, 1869–1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. ISO 4287:1997; Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS)–Surface Texture: Profile Method–Terms, Definitions and Surface Texture Parameters. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
  23. Hu, D.; Gong, J.; He, B.; Chen, Z.; Li, M. Surface properties and Streptococcus Mutans-Streptococcus Sanguinis adhesion of fluorotic enamel. Arch. Oral Biol. 2021, 121, 104970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Konishi, N.; Torii, Y.; Kurosaki, A.; Takatsuka, T.; Itota, T.; Yoshiyama, M. Confocal laser scanning microscopic analysis of early plaque formed on resin composite and human enamel. J. Oral Rehabil. 2003, 30, 790–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ota-Tsuzuki, C.; Martins, F.L.; Giorgetti, A.P.; de Freitas, P.M.; Duarte, P.M. In vitro adhesion of Streptococcus sanguinis to dentine root surface after treatment with Er: YAG laser, ultrasonic system, or manual curette. Photomed. Laser. Surg. 2009, 27, 735–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Cohen, J.; Featherstone, J.D.; Le, C.Q.; Steinberg, D.; Feuerstein, O. Effects of CO2 laser irradiation on tooth enamel coated with biofilm. Lasers Surg. Med. 2014, 46, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Gentile, E.; Di Stasio, D.; Santoro, R.; Contaldo, M.; Salerno, C.; Serpico, R.; Lucchese, A. In vivo microstructural analysis of enamel in permanent and deciduous teeth. Ultrastruct. Pathol. 2015, 39, 131–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Manuela Díaz-Monroy, J.; Contreras-Bulnes, R.; Fernando Olea-Mejía, O.; Emma Rodríguez-Vilchis, L.; Sanchez-Flores, I. Morphological changes produced by acid dissolution in Er: YAG laser irradiated dental enamel. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2014, 77, 410–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alcantara-Galeana, M.D.C.Z.; Contreras-Bulnes, R.; Rodríguez-Vilchis, L.E.; Espinosa-Pesqueira, M.E.; Barrera-Ortega, C.C.; López-Hurtado, I.M.; Fernández-Bobadilla, A. Microhardness, structure, and morphology of primary enamel after phosphoric acid, self-etching adhesive, and Er:YAG laser etching. Int. J. Opt. 2017, 2017, 7634739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zhang, X.Z.; Anderson, P.; Dowker, S.E.; Elliott, J.C. Optical profilometric study of changes in surface roughness of enamel during in vitro demineralization. Caries Res. 2000, 34, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hegedüs, C.; Bistey, T.; Flóra-Nagy, E.; Keszthelyi, G.; Jenei, A. An atomic force microscopy study on the effect of bleaching agents on enamel surface. J. Dent. 1999, 27, 509–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ripa, L.W.; Gwinnett, A.J.; Buonocore, M.G. The ‘‘prismless’’ outer layer of deciduous and permanent enamel. Arch. Oral. Biol. 1966, 11, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kodaka, T.; Nakajima, F.; Higashi, S. Structure of the so-called ‘prismless’ enamel in human deciduous teeth. Caries Res. 1989, 23, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Syed, S.; Yassin, S.M.; Almalki, A.Y.; Ali, S.; Alqarni, A.; Moadi, Y.M.; Alkhaldi, A.M.; Alqahtani, N.M.; Hosmani, J.; Heboyan, A.; et al. Structural changes in primary teeth of diabetic children: Composition and ultrastructure analysis. Children 2022, 9, 317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Wilson, P.R.; Beynon, A.D. Mineralization differences between human deciduous and permanent enamel measured by quantitative microradiography. Arch. Oral. Biol. 1989, 34, 85–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Stack, M.V. Variation in the organic content of deciduous enamel and dentine. Biochem. J. 1953, 54, xv. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Lippert, F.; Parker, D.M.; Jandt, K.D. Susceptibility of deciduous and permanent enamel to dietary acid-induced erosion studied with atomic force microscopy nanoindentation. Eur. J. Oral. Sci. 2004, 112, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Assunção, C.M.; Lussi, A.; Rodrigues, J.A.; Carvalho, T.S. Efficacy of toothpastes in the prevention of erosive tooth wear in permanent and deciduous teeth. Clin. Oral. Investig. 2019, 23, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Assunção, C.M.; Schlueter, N.; Rodrigues, J.A.; Carvalho, T.S.; Lussi, A. Do fluoride toothpastes have similar preventive effect in permanent and primary teeth against erosive tooth wear? Int. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2018, 29, 228–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. McConnell, M.D.; Liu, Y.; Nowak, A.P.; Pilch, S.; Masters, J.G.; Composto, R.J. Bacterial plaque retention on oral hard materials: Effect of surface roughness, surface composition, and physisorbed polycarboxylate. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2010, 92, 1518–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Karatas, O.; Gul, P.; Gündoğdu, M.; Iskenderoglu, D.T. An evaluation of surface roughness after staining of different composite resins using atomic force microscopy and a profilometer. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2020, 83, 1251–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Leach, R.; Haitjema, H. Bandwidth characteristics and comparisons of surface texture measuring instruments. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2010, 21, 79801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. González-Sotelo, A.; Contreras-Bulnes, R.; Rodríguez-Vilchis, L.E.; de Los Angeles Moyaho-Bernal, M.; Rubio-Rosas, E.; Teutle-Coyotecatl, B.; Mézquita-Rodrigo, I. Morphological and porosity changes in primary enamel surface after an in vitro demineralization model. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2022, 85, 1956–1963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zamudio-Ortega, C.M.; Contreras-Bulnes, R.; Scougall-Vilchis, R.J.; Morales-Luckie, R.A.; Olea-Mejía, O.F.; Rodríguez-Vilchis, L.E. Morphological, chemical and structural characterisation of deciduous enamel: SEM, EDS, XRD, FTIR and XPS analysis. Eur. J. Paediatr. Dent. 2014, 15, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  45. Kozmos, M.; Virant, P.; Rojko, F.; Abram, A.; Rudolf, R.; Raspor, P.; Zore, A.; Bohinc, K. Bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to dental material surface. Molecules 2021, 26, 1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Mei, L.; Busscher, H.J.; van der Mei, H.C.; Chen, Y.; de Vries, J.; Ren, Y. Oral bacterial adhesion forces to biomaterial surfaces constituting the bracket-adhesive-enamel junction in orthodontic treatment. Eur. J. Oral. Sci. 2009, 117, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Wyatt, J.E.; Hesketh, L.M.; Handley, P.S. Lack of correlation between fibrils, hydrophobicity and adhesion for strains of Streptococcus sanguis biotypes I and II. Microbios 1987, 50, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  48. Hogt, A.H.; Dankert, J.; Feijen, J. Adhesion of Staphylococcus epidermidis and Staphylococcus saprophyticus to a hydrophobic biomaterial. J. Gen. Microbiol. 1985, 131, 2485–2491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Kreth, J.; Zhang, Y.; Herzberg, M.C. Streptococcal antagonism in oral biofilms: Streptococcus sanguinis and Streptococcus gordonii interference with Streptococcus mutans. J. Bacteriol. 2008, 190, 4632–4640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Mitrakul, K.; Vongsawan, K.; Sriutai, A.; Thosathan, W. Association between S. mutans and S. sanguinis in severe early childhood caries and caries-free children a quantitative real-time PCR analysis. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2016, 40, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Caufield, P.W.; Dasanayake, A.P.; Li, Y.; Pan, Y.; Hsu, J.; Hardin, J.M. Natural history of Streptococcus sanguinis in the oral cavity of infants: Evidence for a discrete window of infectivity. Infect. Immun. 2000, 68, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Lynch, R.J. The primary and mixed dentition, post-eruptive enamel maturation and dental caries: A review. Int. Dent. J. 2013, 63, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hannig, C.; Follo, M.; Hellwig, E.; Al-Ahmad, A. Visualization of adherent micro-organisms using different techniques. J. Med. Microbiol. 2010, 59, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Banas, J.A. Virulence properties of Streptococcus mutans. Front. Biosci. 2004, 9, 1267–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Clarke, K.A. Bacterial factor in the ætiology of dental caries. Br. J. Exp. Pathol. 1924, 5, 141–147. [Google Scholar]
  56. Olsson, J.; Carlén, A.; Holmberg, K. Inhibition of Streptococcus mutans adherence to hydroxyapatite with combinations of alkyl phosphates and nonionic surfactants. Caries Res. 1991, 25, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Mitik-Dineva, N.; Wang, J.; Mocanasu, R.C.; Stoddart, P.R.; Crawford, R.J.; Ivanova, E.P. Impact of nano-topography on bacterial attachment. Biotechnol. J. 2008, 3, 536–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Wang, C.; Zhao, Y.; Zheng, S.; Xue, J.; Zhou, J.; Tang, Y.; Jiang, L.; Li, W. Effect of enamel morphology on nanoscale adhesion forces of streptococcal bacteria: An AFM study. Scanning 2015, 37, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Microorganisms 10 01701 g001 550
Figure 1. AFM images from dental enamel; (a) deciduous, (b) permanent. The asterisk denotes the image axes (i.e., X*, Y*).
Figure 1. AFM images from dental enamel; (a) deciduous, (b) permanent. The asterisk denotes the image axes (i.e., X*, Y*).
Microorganisms 10 01701 g001
Microorganisms 10 01701 g002 550
Figure 2. Confocal laser scanning microscopic images (xy-views) of the bacterial cells that adhered to dental enamel assayed by LIVE/DEAD® BacLight™ Bacterial Viability Kits (magnification 100×); (a) deciduous enamel with S. mutans; (b) permanent enamel with S. mutans; (c) deciduous enamel with S. sanguinis; (d) permanent enamel with S. sanguinis.
Figure 2. Confocal laser scanning microscopic images (xy-views) of the bacterial cells that adhered to dental enamel assayed by LIVE/DEAD® BacLight™ Bacterial Viability Kits (magnification 100×); (a) deciduous enamel with S. mutans; (b) permanent enamel with S. mutans; (c) deciduous enamel with S. sanguinis; (d) permanent enamel with S. sanguinis.
Microorganisms 10 01701 g002
Microorganisms 10 01701 g003 550
Figure 3. Representative scanning electronic microscopic (SEM) of dental enamel incubated with microorganisms; original magnification, 5000×; scale bar = 5 µm; (a) deciduous enamel with S. mutans; (b) permanent enamel with S. mutans; (c) deciduous enamel with S. sanguinis; (d) permanent enamel with S. sanguinis.
Figure 3. Representative scanning electronic microscopic (SEM) of dental enamel incubated with microorganisms; original magnification, 5000×; scale bar = 5 µm; (a) deciduous enamel with S. mutans; (b) permanent enamel with S. mutans; (c) deciduous enamel with S. sanguinis; (d) permanent enamel with S. sanguinis.
Microorganisms 10 01701 g003
Table
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of roughness parameters Ra and Rz (µm) of deciduous and permanent enamel obtained by profilometer and AFM.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of roughness parameters Ra and Rz (µm) of deciduous and permanent enamel obtained by profilometer and AFM.
GroupsRoughness Parameters
RaRz
Profilometer
(n = 54 p/g)
AFM
(n = 3 p/g)		G1_DE0.210±0.110a1.840±1.120a
G2_PE0.250±0.200a2.070±1.530a
G1_DE0.067±0.030a0.082±0.038a
G2_PE0.030±0.018b0.037±0.023b
Groups with different letters in column are significantly different by characterization method; pairwise Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Average and standard error of bacterial cells of S. mutans and S. sanguinis that adhered to deciduous and permanent enamel obtained by XTT cell viability assay.
Table 2. Average and standard error of bacterial cells of S. mutans and S. sanguinis that adhered to deciduous and permanent enamel obtained by XTT cell viability assay.
Groups (n = 3)Number of Bacterial Cells × 106/mL
S. MutansS. Sanguinis
G1_DE227.2±12.3A, a374.4±6.8A, b
G2_PE31.4±12.3B, a87.9±8.8B, b
Capital letters in a column are comparisons of same bacteria between different group. Lower-case letters in a row are comparisons between bacteria in the same group. Letters being the same indicates lack of statistical difference (pairwise Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Teutle-Coyotecatl, B.; Contreras-Bulnes, R.; Rodríguez-Vilchis, L.E.; Scougall-Vilchis, R.J.; Velazquez-Enriquez, U.; Almaguer-Flores, A.; Arenas-Alatorre, J.A. Effect of Surface Roughness of Deciduous and Permanent Tooth Enamel on Bacterial Adhesion. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 1701. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms10091701

AMA Style

Teutle-Coyotecatl B, Contreras-Bulnes R, Rodríguez-Vilchis LE, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Velazquez-Enriquez U, Almaguer-Flores A, Arenas-Alatorre JA. Effect of Surface Roughness of Deciduous and Permanent Tooth Enamel on Bacterial Adhesion. Microorganisms. 2022; 10(9):1701. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms10091701

Chicago/Turabian Style

Teutle-Coyotecatl, Bernardo, Rosalía Contreras-Bulnes, Laura Emma Rodríguez-Vilchis, Rogelio José Scougall-Vilchis, Ulises Velazquez-Enriquez, Argelia Almaguer-Flores, and Jesús Angel Arenas-Alatorre. 2022. "Effect of Surface Roughness of Deciduous and Permanent Tooth Enamel on Bacterial Adhesion" Microorganisms 10, no. 9: 1701. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms10091701

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop