Peri-implantitis is essentially the most important explanation for early or late implant failures.1 It happens when micro organism coagulate irreversibly on the tooth or implants and results in the formation of a bacterial biofilm on the floor, which may result in bone loss.2–4 To deal with peri-implantitis, mechanical strategies which take away the biofilm utilizing carbon fiber curettes and chemical strategies which kill the micro organism through disinfection remedy and antibiotics5–7 are used collectively for efficient outcomes. Lately, to forestall peri-implantitis, many makes an attempt have been made to deal with the floor of implants with antibacterial supplies.8 Graphene, a honeycomb-lattice monolayer comprising fragrant ring carbon atoms, is a possible biomaterial owing to its distinctive bodily and chemical properties.9–11 In distinction, in contrast to graphene, graphene oxide (GO) has hydrophilic tendency due to its practical teams (ie, carboxyl, hydroxyl, and epoxy teams); an antibiotic impact; and it promotes bone manufacturing via osteoblast activation.12–17 Current strategies of GO fabrication embody chemical or bodily exfoliation from bulk graphite,18,19 chemical vapor deposition utilizing a metallic catalyst,20 and Hummer’s technique.21,22 Nonetheless, these strategies have some disadvantages together with excessive air pollution, low effectivity, potential residual answer byproducts utilized in GO manufacturing, and the technology of dangerous inflammable gases similar to NO2, N2O4, and ClO2.23–25
When residing tissues are handled with plasma (a charged gasoline due to ionized power), their wettability and mechanical and organic properties could be modified.26 Plasma remedy improves biocompatibility, cell adhesion, and will increase bacterial resistance.27–30 On this research, we developed a brand new technique combining plasma remedy and graphene synthesis. Rho et al reported the deposition of an argon plasma-based GO on a titanium floor, bettering biocompatibility and selling differentiation of fibroblasts (NCTC clone 929) and MC3T3-E1 cells.31 This straightforward and cost-effective technique didn’t require any components or produced any by-products. Zirconia, one of many major dental supplies, has low toxicity and corrosivity and excessive antibiotic exercise and biocompatibility.32,33 Owing to those options, zirconia implants are at the moment being studied extensively. The rise in scientific purposes of zirconia implants is due to its increased success charge34 and comparable fracture power to that of titanium, which has been broadly used previously.35 Nonetheless, to one of the best of our information, the mixed results of GO and zirconia haven’t but been reported. Due to this fact, this research evaluated the results of a biocompatible plasma-based GO-coated Zr floor on biofilm formation and osteoblast activation.
Supplies and Strategies
Zirconia (Zirmon, Kuwotech, Gwangju, Korea) was produced into disk-shaped specimens (diameter: 15 mm, thickness: 2.5 mm). The floor of every specimen was ready utilizing #800 SiC (silicon carbide) paper to acquire a fair floor. All specimens have been cleaned with acetone, alcohol, and distilled water for 20 min utilizing an ultrasonic cleaner. Thereafter, the specimens have been dried at room temperature (20–25 °C) and sterilized utilizing an autoclave (HS-3460SD, Hanshin Medical Co, Korea). Two teams of zirconia specimens have been ready: pure zirconia specimens which weren’t coated with GO (Group Zr) and zirconia specimens which have been coated with GO for 1 min (Group Zr-GO).
Zirconia specimens have been coated with GO utilizing an atmospheric stress plasma generator (PGS-300, Expantech Co, Korea). Argon gasoline (4 L/min) and methane gasoline (3.5 mL/min) have been combined in a quartz tube and coated on the floor at 240 V on the charge of 10 L/min. The gap between the specimen and plasma was maintained at 25 mm, and the plasma was rotated and concurrently reciprocated from side-to-side to make sure even software of GO on the floor (Table 1, Figure 1).
Desk 1 Parameters of the Atmospheric Plasma Generator
Determine 1 Schematic diagram of GO coating with atmospheric plasma generator.
Evaluation of Floor Traits
The floor of zirconia was coated with platinum in vacuum for 60 s utilizing a sputter coater (E-1030, Hitachi, Japan) and was noticed utilizing a discipline emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM; S-4700, Hitachi, Japan).
The thicknesses, atomic parts, and chemical bonds of the specimens have been assessed utilizing X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS; VG Multilab 2000, Thermo Scientific, UK). The height areas of atomic parts noticed within the specimens have been normalized and expressed as quantitative proportions.
The shapes, thicknesses, and roughness of specimens have been noticed utilizing a nanosurface 3D optical profiler (NV-E1000, Nano System, Korea), and for every group three specimens have been measured utilizing three completely different areas.
Raman spectroscopy was carried out to evaluate the standing of the GO coating on the zirconia floor at 532.13 nm utilizing a Raman spectrometer (NRS-5100, JASCO, Japan), and the contact angle (Phoenix 300, website positioning Inc., Korea) was measured to match the hydrophilicity of the surfaces. For every group, three specimens have been measured and their common contact angles have been analyzed (Surfaceware 9 software program, website positioning Inc, Korea)
Evaluation of Bacterial Adhesion
To judge biofilm thickness inhibition, Streptococcus mutans (KCOM 1504 obtained from the Korean Assortment for Oral Microbiology (KCOM, Korea)), a gram-positive bacterium concerned in early biofilm formation, was used. S. mutans was cultured at 37 °C in a tradition chamber (LIB-150M, DAIHAN Labtech Co., Korea) utilizing a BHI medium (Mind Coronary heart Infusion, Becton, Dickinson and Firm, Sparks, MD, USA).
Each specimen was sterilized in an autoclave (HS-3460SD, Hanshin Medical Co, Korea) for two h and disinfected beneath UV for twenty-four h. Subsequently, for every group, eight specimens have been positioned in a 24-well plate (SPL Life Sciences Co., Ltd., Korea), and every specimen was inoculated with S. mutans (1.5 x 107 CFU/mL) and cultured for twenty-four h.
Bacterial Adhesion Evaluation
After culturing, the tradition medium was eliminated, and the specimens have been cleaned with Phosphate Buffer Saline (PBS) answer twice. Adherent micro organism have been dyed with 0.3% crystal violet answer by meting out 500 µL of the answer to every specimen. After 10 min, the crystal violet answer was eliminated, and the remaining answer was cleaned 3 times with PBS answer. Subsequently, the specimens have been dried for 15 min, and 500 µL of demineralized answer (80% ethyl alcohol + 20% acetone) was disbursed. The specimens have been tightly sealed and stirred for 1 h. After stirring, 200 µL of every specimen was disbursed right into a 96-well plate (SPL Life Sciences Co, Ltd, Korea), and their absorbance was measured at 595 nm utilizing ELISA (VersaMax ELISA Microplate Reader, Molecular Machine, CA, USA).
Micro organism adhesion was visually assessed utilizing the LIVE/DEAD® BacLightTM Bacterial Viability Equipment (SYTO 9®, Molecular Probes Europe BV, Netherlands). After culturing, the micro organism and the remaining tradition medium have been cleaned with PBS answer. To every specimen, 200 µL of fluorescence reagent (SYTO 9 dye: propidium iodide: dH2O = 1.5 µL: 1.5 µL: 1.0 mL) was injected. The properly plate was sealed with aluminum foil to dam the sunshine and was dyed at room temperature (20–25 °C) for 15 min. Subsequently, the remaining dye answer was cleaned with PBS answer and the adherent micro organism have been noticed utilizing a confocal laser scanning microscope (Leica TCS SP5 AOBS/tandem, Leica, Germany) and the thickness of the biofilm fashioned on the specimen was measured via an z-axis depth profiling (Leica LAS AF software program, Leica Microsystems, Bensheim, Germany).
Evaluation of Osteoblast Viability
MC3T3-E1 osteoblasts (MC3T3-E1 subclone 4, ATCC CRL2593, USA) have been cultured at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 incubator (Forma Collection II 3111 Water Jacketed CO2 Incubator, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., USA) utilizing an alpha minimal important medium (α-MEM; Gibco-BRL, Grand Island, USA) containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 100 U/mL penicillin.
For every group, eight specimens have been ready and glued in a 24-well plate. Cultured cells (4×104 cells/mL) have been disbursed on every specimen and incubated at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 incubator. After meting out the cells, cell adhesion and proliferation have been assessed on the first and the fifth day, respectively. Earlier than evaluation, the floor was cleaned with PBS to take away any remaining tradition medium and non-adherent cells. Subsequently, 1 mL of recent medium and 100 uL of WST-8 reagent (EZ-Cytox, Itsbio, Inc., Korea) have been added to every specimen and incubated at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 incubator. After 10 min, when colour improvement was noticed, 100 µL of every specimen was disbursed right into a 96-well plate and their absorbance was measured at 450 nm utilizing an absorbance reader (VersaMax ELISA Microplate Reader, Molecular Gadgets, USA).
For every group, eight specimens disinfected with UV rays have been fastened in a 24-well plate. Cultured cells (4×104 cells/mL) have been disbursed on every specimen and cultured at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 incubator. Cell differentiation was assessed on the twenty first day after culturing. Subsequently, the floor was cleaned with PBS to take away the remaining tradition medium and non-adherent cells. Every specimen was handled with 200 µL of ALP assay buffer and cultured at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 incubator for 1 h. Subsequently, 80 µL of every specimen was disbursed right into a 96-well plate and handled with 50 µL of pNPP answer. The specimens have been cultured at 37 °C in a 5% CO2 incubator for 1 h, handled with 20 µL of cease answer, and their absorbance was measured at 405 nm.
Statistical evaluation was performed utilizing SPSS 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The importance check relying on the remedy of GO coating didn’t meet the normality, thus the Mann–Whitney U-test, a non-parametric check, was carried out. The importance of all knowledge collected was examined at a significance stage of P < 0.05.
Floor traits have been noticed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) (Figure 2A and B). Group Zr exhibited an evenly polished floor, whereas in Group Zr-GO, GO exhibited a cloudy look on the floor.
Determine 2 FE-SEM photographs of (A) management (Zr) and (B) GO-coated zirconia (Zr-GO) teams (×50K). Three-dimensional floor morphology roughness photographs of (C) Zr and (D) Zr-GO teams.
Floor roughness was measured utilizing a nanosurface 3D optical profiler (Figure 2C and D), with Group Zr-GO exhibiting excessive roughness (n=3). The Ra values of Group Zr and Zr-GO have been 130.564 ± 50.352 nm and 184.084 ± 45.153 nm, respectively.
The atomic parts of the floor have been analyzed by XPS (Figure 3). Each Group Zr and Group Zr-GO exhibited oxygen (O), carbon (C), and zirconia (Zr) peaks. The component ratio evaluation demonstrated that the Zr group consisted of 43.35% carbon, 45.28% oxygen, and 11.37% zirconia; and the Zr-GO group consisted of 86.78% carbon, 12.08% oxygen, and 1.13% zirconia. Group Zr-GO confirmed a excessive carbon peak, leading to a 2x-high carbon ratio.
Determine 3 XPS profiles of GO-coated zirconia floor (Zr-GO) and management (Zr) teams.
The Raman spectrum evaluation (Figure 4) noticed distinctive peaks of GO, together with D band (~1350cm−1), G band (~1590cm−1), and 2D band (~2690cm−1). In contrast with Group Zr, Group Zr-GO confirmed a major improve within the contact angle (39.27 ± 0.914° vs 64.64 ± 0.310°; P < 0.05) (Figure 5).
Determine 4 Raman spectrum of GO-coated zirconia floor (Zr-GO) and management (Zr) teams, displaying D (1350 cm −1), G (1581 cm −1), and 2D peak at 2690 cm −1 of GO band.
Inhibition of Biofilm Formation
Within the crystal violet assay, the S. mutans adhesion in Group Zr-GO considerably decreased in comparison with that of Group Zr (P < 0.001) (Figure 6A). Moreover, the thickness of biofilm in Group Zr-GO decreased considerably (Group Zr = 16.99 ± 3.36 µm, Group Zr-GO = 11.20 ± 0.74 µm; P < 0.05) (Figure 6B). Lastly, utilizing the LIVE/DEAD® BacLightTM Bacterial Viability Equipment. (Figure 6C and D), a larger variety of viable cells have been noticed in Zr group in contrast with that of the Zr-GO group.
Results on Cell Adhesion, Proliferation, and Differentiation
To evaluate osteoblast adhesion and proliferation, the WST-8 assay was carried out. For adhesion, a absorbance of Group Zr (2.18) was noticed with a bit increased than that of Group Zr-GO (0.207); nonetheless, this distinction was not statistically important (Figure 7A). Contrarily, for proliferation, a considerably increased absorbance stage was noticed in Group Zr-GO (0.322) as in contrast with that of Group Zr (0.309) (P <0.05) (Figure 7B). Cell differentiation was assessed utilizing the ALP exercise assay. As proven in Figure 7C, the absorbance stage of Group Zr-GO (0.219) was considerably increased than that of Group Zr (0.190) (P < 0.05).
After the 5 days of cell tradition, the proliferation of cell morphology have been noticed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). It confirmed that the cells exhibited proliferation and spreading on the surfaces and the cells proliferated extra within the group Zr-GO (Figure 8B–D). Than within the group Zr (Figure 8A–C) and numerous cell projections have been fashioned.
Determine 8 FE-SEM photographs of 5 days cell tradition (A) Zr group: management group (x150K), (B) Zr-GO group: zirconia coated with GO (x150K), (C) Zr group: management group (x300K), (D) Zr-GO group: zirconia coated with GO (x300K).
Implants are very helpful for changing lacking tooth. Nonetheless, after implantation, bone resorption or irritation of the encircling gingiva typically happens due to bacterial an infection. Due to this fact, to forestall this, researchers have tried to use numerous floor therapies to the implant materials to extend their success and survival charge; osseointegration and cell proliferation elevated due to the rise of the floor roughness by treating the floor of the implant.36 Electrochemical floor remedy37 or software of an antibacterial materials coatings have been additionally employed to cut back bacterial adhesion.8
Lately, a number of research have exhibited an elevated antibacterial exercise of GO.40–42 A earlier research by Liu and Qiu42,43 reported that treating surfaces with GO promoted antibiotic results and bone activation. Moreover, Wang44 reported that GO was efficient in bettering the bio-activation of the floor of supplies. Fallatah et al45 demonstrated that GO diminished the biofilm thickness fashioned by Pseudomonas putida and had a capability to separate the biofilm from the floor. On this research, GO was instantly deposited utilizing argon plasma, which was cost-effective and didn’t generate any by-products on the zirconia floor. The micro organism resistance and cell activation ranges have been evaluated by treating GO on zirconia, which has a excessive corrosion resistance and biocompatibility just like titanium and esthetics just like the pure tooth.38,39
The mechanism of antibacterial exercise of GO stays to be elucidated. The antibacterial mechanism of GO recognized thus far is the bodily destruction of the cell membrane and oxidative stress harm.46,47 Generally, it’s recognized that reactive oxygen species (ROS)-mediated oxidative stress is generated by graphene-based supplies, which causes critical harm to bacterial cells and has antibacterial motion.48,49 Nonetheless, some research have performed in vitro experiments and advised that the ROS mechanism isn’t the first mechanism for the antibacterial motion of GO.38,50 One other antibacterial course of is the dispersibility and trapping potential of oxygen-containing practical teams of GO.47,51–53 Because of the hydrophobic properties of graphene oxide, the adhesion of bacterial cells is prevented, and moreover, the hydrophobic interplay can destroy the bacterial membrane, leading to antibacterial motion. Moreover, aggregated GO can function a scaffold for bacterial attachment and proliferation.54 The antibacterial impact of GO and the impact of practical teams have obtained in depth consideration for future research.
On this research, S. mutans adhesion on GO-coated zirconia diminished considerably. This confirmed an antibacterial impact of GO, which aided in decreasing the irritation which could happen after the location or restoration of zirconia implants. Along with the antibacterial impact, the direct-deposited GO on zirconia additionally elevated the cell exercise which was efficient in bone adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation. The hydrophobic and electrostatic interplay of GO improved bone differentiation leading to its elevated consideration within the discipline of bone-tissue engineering.55 Dinescu et al56 evaluated bone differentiation by including 3 wt% graphene to chitosan scaffolds and noticed a rise in osteogenesis. This was attributed to the elevated porosity of the floor which created an acceptable surroundings for cell adhesion. Aidun et al57 reported that (polycaprolactone) PCL-chitosan scaffolds that have been moreover handled with GO confirmed a rise within the cell adhesion and proliferation, and the bioactivity and hydrophilicity of the floor, whereas sustaining their antibacterial impact. Nonetheless, on this research, a major distinction was noticed in osteoblast proliferation and differentiation whereas no important change was noticed in cell adhesion. Unagolla et al58 assessed cell adhesion of PCL scaffolds which have been handled with graphene at completely different concentrations and reported important improve in cell proliferation over time. Nonetheless, cell adhesion didn’t present any important distinction between teams on the 2nd and third day.
Hydrophilic surfaces exhibit elevated adhesion and proliferation of micro organism and cells. In dentistry, numerous approaches have been utilized to extend the floor hydrophilicity of implants. For instance, Qu et al59 reported that the floor of implants with excessive hydrophilicity can enhance the adhesion and differentiation of surrounding cells. On this research, the contact angle of specimens within the untreated Group Zr and the GO-treated Group Zr-GO was in contrast. Group Zr demonstrated a comparatively excessive hydrophilicity. This floor attribute appeared to have an effect on the early adhesion of cells, whereas coating zirconia with GO didn’t have an effect on early adhesion and improved cell proliferation and differentiation.
Moreover, this research examined the results of GO coating (on a zirconia floor) on the antibacterial exercise and osteoblast activation. Earlier research tried to coat on titanium with ZrN or Ag nanos, which is thought to have antibacterial results, and utilized it to the implant abutments.8,60–62 As well as, some research advised that micro organism residing on the interface of implant abutment and prosthesis may very well be prevented.63 Carinci et al64 examined bacterial viability and biofilm formation on the within of implants coated with chlorhexidine and reported that tender tissues have been successfully healed with none inflammatory signs. These outcomes demonstrated that zirconia coated with GO may very well be employed as a fixture and abutment whereas putting implants within the maxillary anterior space or within the interface of implants to cut back peri-implantitis. As well as, GO coating could be utilized to the inside facet of zirconia to supply dental crowns with a decrease incidence of secondary caries in abutments.
On this research, in comparison with the group Zr, the attachment of S. mutans was diminished by 58.58% and the biofilm thickness by 43.49% within the group Zr-GO. In cell analysis, the adhesion of MC3T3-1 cells was not important in group Zr and Zr-GO, however cell proliferation and cell differentiation elevated by 3.23% and 15.79%, which have been statistically important.
This research confirmed the potential potential of zirconia implants coated with GO to inhibit biofilm formation and activate the cells. Nonetheless, since GO has comparatively low hydrophilicity in contrast with that of zirconia, extra analysis is required to extend the hydrophilicity of GO for a better cell exercise. Furthermore, when the layer of GO is simply too thick, the esthetic worth of zirconia reduces. Due to this fact, you will need to decide the required minimal thickness of GO.
This work was supported by the Nationwide Analysis Basis (NRF) of Korea grant funded by the Korea authorities (MSIP) (No. 2020R1F1A1076982 and 2018R1A2B6002268).
The authors report no conflicts of curiosity on this work.
1. Han HJ, Kim S, Han DH. Multifactorial analysis of implant failure: a 19-year retrospective research. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:303–310. doi:10.11607/jomi.2869
2. Albouy JP, Abrahamsson I, Persson LG, Berglundh T. Spontaneous development of ligatured induced peri-implantitis at implants with completely different floor traits. An experimental research in canines II: histological observations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:366–371. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01645.x
3. Carcuac O, Abrahamsson I, Albouy JP, Linder E, Larsson L, Berglundh T. Experimental periodontitis and peri-implantitis in canines. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:363–371. doi:10.1111/clr.12067
4. Lang NP, Bragger U, Walther D, Beamer B, Kornman KS. Ligature-induced peri-implant an infection in cynomolgus monkeys. I. Scientific and radiographic findings. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1993;4:2–11. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040101.x
5. Sanino G, Gigola P, Putini M, Pera F, Pasarielo C. Mixture remedy together with seratiopeptidase improves outcomes of mechanical-antibiotic remedy of perimplantitis. Int J ImmunopatholPharmacol. 2013;26(3):825–831. doi:10.1177/039463201302600332
6. Park SY, Kim KH, Shin SY, et al. Decontamination strategies utilizing a dental water jet and dental flos for microthreaded implant fixtures in regenerative perimplantitis remedy. Implant Dent. 2015;24(3):307–316.
7. Schwarz F, Bieling Okay, Bonsman M, Latz T, Becker J. Nonsurgical remedy of average and superior perimplantitis lesions: a controled scientific research. Clin Oral Investig. 2006;10(4):279–288.
8. Wan R, Chu S, Wang X, et al. Research on the osteogenesis of rat mesenchymal stem cells and the lengthy‐time period antibacterial exercise of Staphylococcus epidermidison the floor of silver‐richTiN/Ag modified titanium alloy. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2020;108(7):3008–3021.
9. Chen H, Muller MB, Gilmore KJ, Wallace GG, Li D. Mechanically sturdy, electrically conductive, and biocompatible graphene paper. Adv Mater. 2008;20:3557–3561.
10. Rao CNR, Sood AK, Subrahmanyam KS, Govindaraj A. Graphene: the brand new two dimensional nanomaterial. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2009;48:7752–7777. doi:10.1002/anie.200901678
11. Fu C, Bai H, Zhu J, et al. Enhanced cell proliferation and osteogenic differentiation in electrospun PLGA/hydroxyapatite nanofibre scaffolds included with graphene oxide. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0188352. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0188352
12. Su J, Du Z, Xiao L, et al. Graphene oxide coated titanium surfaces with osteoimmunomodulatory function to boost osteogenesis. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Bio Appl. 2020;113:110983. doi:10.1016/j.msec.2020.110983
13. Recinella L, Chiavaroli A, Giordani S, et al. Osteoblastic dierentiation on graphene oxide-functionalized titanium surfaces: an in vitro research. Nanomaterials. 2020;10:654. doi:10.3390/nano10040654
14. Nayak TR, Andersen H, Makam VS, et al. Graphene for managed and accelerated osteogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. ACS Nano. 2011;5:4670–4678. doi:10.1021/nn200500h
15. Zhang L, Liu W, Yue C, et al. A troublesome graphene nanosheet/hydroxyapatite composite with improved in vitro biocompatibility. Carbon. 2013;61:105–115. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2013.04.074
16. Elkhenany H, Amelse L, Lafont A, et al. Graphene helps in vitro proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of goat grownup mesenchymal stem cells: potential for bone tissue engineering. J Appl Toxicol. 2014;35:367–374. doi:10.1002/jat.3024
17. Arshad A, Iqbal J, Siddiq M, et al. Graphene nanoplatelets induced tailoring in photocatalytic exercise and antibacterial traits of MgO/graphene nanoplatelets nanocomposites. J Appl Phys. 2017;121:024901. doi:10.1063/1.4972970
18. Novoselov KS. Electrical discipline impact in atomically skinny carbon movies. Science. 2004;306(5696):666–669. doi:10.1126/science.1102896
19. Rümmeli MH, Rocha CG, Ortmann F, et al. Graphene: piecing it Collectively. Adv Mater. 2011;23:4471–4490. doi:10.1002/adma.201101855
20. Brownson DAC, Banks CE. The electrochemistry of CVD graphene: progress and prospects. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2012;14:8264. doi:10.1039/c2cp40225d
21. Sali S, Mackey HR, Abdala AA. Impact of graphene oxide synthesis technique on properties and efficiency of polysulfone-graphene oxide combined matrix membranes. Nanomaterials. 2019;9:769. doi:10.3390/nano9050769
22. Somanathan T, Prasad Okay, Ostrikov KK, Saravanan A, Krishna VM. Graphene oxide synthesis from agro waste. Nanomaterials. 2015;5:826–834. doi:10.3390/nano5020826
23. Brownson DAC, Metters JP, Kampouris DK, Banks CE. Graphene electrochemistry: surfactants inherent to graphene can dramatically impact electrochemical processes. Electroanalysis. 2011;23:894–899. doi:10.1002/elan.201000708
24. Brownson DAC, Banks CE. Graphene eletrochemistry: surfactants inherent to graphene inhibit metallic evaluation. Electrochem Commun. 2011;13:111–113. doi:10.1016/j.elecom.2010.11.024
25. Brownson DAC, Banks CE. Fabricating graphene supercapacitors: highlighting the influence of surfactants and moieties. Chem Commun. 2012;48:1425–1427. doi:10.1039/C1CC11276G
26. Chu P, Chen JY, Wang LP, Huang N. Plasma-surface modification of biomaterials. Mater Sci Eng R Rep. 2002;36:143–206. doi:10.1016/S0927-796X(02)00004-9
27. Park GY, Park SJ, Choi MY, et al. Atmospheric-pressure plasma sources for biomedical purposes. Plasma Sources Sci Techno. 2012;21:043001. doi:10.1088/0963-0252/21/4/043001
28. Bogya ES, Károly Z, Barabás R. Atmospheric plasma sprayed silica–hydroxyapatite coatings on magnesium alloy substrates. Ceram Int. 2015;41:6005–6012. doi:10.1016/j.ceramint.2015.01.041
29. Wang L, Porto CL, Palumbo F, et al. Synthesis of antibacterial composite coating containing nanocapsules in an atmospheric stress plasma. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2021;119:111496. doi:10.1016/j.msec.2020.111496
30. Nicol MJ, Brubaker TR, Honish IIBJ, et al. Antibacterial results of low temperature plasma generated by atmospheric-pressure plasma jet are mediated by reactive oxygen species. Sci Rep. 2020;10:3066. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-59652-6
31. Rho KH, Park C, Alam Okay, et al. Organic results of Plasma-based graphene oxide deposition on Titanium. J Nanomater. 2019;2019:1–7. doi:10.1155/2019/9124989
32. Chevalier J. What Future for Zirconia as a Biomaterial? Biomaterials. 2006;27:535–543. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.07.034
33. Denry I, Kelly JR. Cutting-edge of zirconia for dental purposes. Dent Mater. 2008;24:299–307. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.007
34. Brüll F, Van Winkelhoff AJ, Cune MS. Zirconia dental implants: a scientific, radiographic, and microbiological analysis as much as 3 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:914–920. doi:10.11607/jomi.3293
35. Gautam C, Joyner J, Gautam A, Rao J, Vajtai R. Zirconia based mostly dental ceramics: construction, mechanical properties, biocompatibility and purposes. Dalton Trans. 2016;45:19194–19215. doi:10.1039/C6DT03484E
36. Jemat A, Ghazali MJ, Razali M, Otsuka Y. Floor modifications and their results on titanium dental implants. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:1–11. doi:10.1155/2015/791725
37. Yu S, Guo D, Han J, et al. Enhancing antibacterial efficiency and biocompatibility of pure titanium by a two-step electrochemical floor coating. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2020;12(40):44433–44446. doi:10.1021/acsami.0c10032
38. Zhao M, Shan T, Wu Q, Gu L. The Antibacterial impact of graphene oxide on streptococcus mutans. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2020;20:2095–2103. doi:10.1166/jnn.2020.17319
39. Vi TTT, Kumar SR, Pang JHS, Liu YK, Chen DW, Lue SJ. Synergistic antibacterial exercise of silver-loaded graphene oxide in direction of staphylococcus aureus and escherichia coli. Nanomaterials(Basel). 2020;10:366. doi:10.3390/nano10020366
40. Hu WB, Peng C, Luo WJ, et al. Graphene based mostly antibacterial paper. ACS Nano. 2010;4:4317–4323. doi:10.1021/nn101097v
41. Zou XF, Zhang L, Wang ZJ, Luo Y. Mechanisms of the antimicrobial actions of graphene supplies. J Am Chem Soc. 2016;138:2064–2077. doi:10.1021/jacs.5b11411
42. Qiu J, Geng H, Wang D, et al. Layer-number dependent antibacterial and osteogenic behaviors of graphene oxide electrophoretic deposited on titanium. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2017;9:12253–12263. doi:10.1021/acsami.7b00314
43. Liu M, Hao L, Huang Q, et al. Tea polyphenol-reduced graphene oxide deposition on titanium floor enhances osteoblast bioactivity. J Nanosci Nanotechnol. 2018;18(5):3134–3140. doi:10.1166/jnn.2018.14649
44. Wang C, Hu H, Li Z, et al. Enhanced osseointegration of titanium alloy implants with laser micro grooved surfaces and graphene oxide coating. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2019;11:39470–39483. doi:10.1021/acsami.9b12733
45. Fallatah H, Elhaneid M, Ali-Boucetta H, Overton TW, El Kadri H, Gkatzionis Okay. Antibacterial impact of graphene oxide (GO) nano-particles in opposition to Pseudomonas putida biofilm of variable age. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2019;26:25057–25070. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-05688-9
46. Li X, Li F, Gao Z, Fang L. Toxicology of graphene oxide nanosheets in opposition to paecilomyces catenlannulatus. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2015;95(1):25–30. doi:10.1007/s00128-015-1499-3
47. Zou X, Zhang L, Wang Z, Luo Y. Mechanisms of the antimicrobial actions of graphene supplies. J Am Chem Soc. 2016;138(7):2064–2077.
48. Zhang Y, Ali SF, Dervishi E, et al. Cytotoxicity results of graphene and single-wall carbon nanotubes in neural phaeochromocytoma-derived PC12 cells. ACS Nano. 2010;4(6):3181–3186. doi:10.1021/nn1007176
49. Gurunathan S, Han JW, Dayem AA, et al. Antibacterial exercise of dithiothreitol diminished graphene oxide. J Industrial Eng Chem. 2013;19(4):1280–1288. doi:10.1016/j.jiec.2012.12.029
50. Kurantowicz N, Sawosz E, Jaworski S, et al. Interplay of graphene household supplies with Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella enterica. Nanoscale Res Lett. 2015;10:23–34. doi:10.1186/s11671-015-0749-y
51. Liu S, Zeng TH, Hofmann M, et al. Antibacterial exercise of graphite, graphite oxide, graphene oxide, and diminished graphene oxide: membrane and oxidative stress. ACS Nano. 2011;5(9):6971–6980. doi:10.1021/nn202451x
52. Akhavan O, Ghaderi E, Esfandiar A. Wrapping micro organism by graphene nanosheets for isolation from surroundings, reactivation by sonication, and inactivation by near-infrared irradiation. J Phys Chem B. 2011;115(19):6279–6288. doi:10.1021/jp200686k
53. Akhavan O, Ghaderi E. Escherichia coli micro organism scale back graphene oxide to bactericidal graphene in a self-limiting method. Carbon. 2012;50(5):1853–1860. doi:10.1016/j.carbon.2011.12.035
54. Ruiz ON, Fernando KA, Wang B, et al. Graphene oxide: a nonspecific enhancer of mobile progress. ACS Nano. 2011;5(10):8100–8107. doi:10.1021/nn202699t
55. Hermenean A, Codreanu A, Herman H, et al. Chitosan-graphene oxide 3D scaffolds as promising instruments for bone regeneration in critical-size mouse calvarial defects. Sci Rep. 2017;7:91–95. doi:10.1038/s41598-017-16599-5
56. Dinescu S, Ionita M, Ignat SR, Costache M, Hermenean A. Graphene oxide enhances chitosan-based 3d scaffold properties for bone tissue engineering. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20:5077. doi:10.3390/ijms20205077
57. Aidun A, Safaei Firoozabady A, Moharrami M, et al. Graphene oxide included polycaprolactone/chitosan/collagen electrospun scaffold: enhanced osteogenic properties for bone tissue engineering. Artif Organs. 2019;43(10):E264–E281. doi:10.1111/aor.13474
58. Unagolla JM, Jayasuriya AC. Enhanced cell features on graphene oxide included 3D printed polycaprolactone scaffolds. Mater Sci Eng. 2019;102:1–11. doi:10.1016/j.msec.2019.04.026
59. Qu Z, Rausch-Fan X, Wieland M, Matejka M. Schedle A The preliminary attachment and subsequent conduct regulation of osteoblasts by dental implant floor modification. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2007;82:658–668.
60. Brunello G, Brun P, Gardin C, et al. Biocompatibility and antibacterial properties of zirconium nitride coating on titanium abutments: an in vitro research. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0199591.
61. Kheur S, Singh N, Bodas D, et al. Nanoscale silver depositions inhibit microbial colonization and enhance biocompatibility of titanium abutments. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2017;159:151–158.
62. Slate AJ, Wickens DJ. Antimicrobial exercise of Ti-ZrN/Ag coatings to be used in biomaterial purposes. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1497.
63. Scarano A, Valbonetti L, Degidi M, Pecci R, Piattelli A. Implant-abutment contact surfaces and microgap measurements of dierent implant connections beneath three-d X-ray microtomography. Implant Dent. 2016;25:656–662.
64. Carinci F, Lauritano D, Bignozzi CA, et al. A brand new technique in opposition to peri-implantitis: antibacterial inner coating. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20:3897.