Biological characterization of implant surfaces - in vitro study

ObjectiveEvaluate the biological performance of titanium alloys grade IV under different surface treatments: sandblasting and double etching (Experimental surface 1; Exp1, NEODENT); surface with wettability increase (Experimental surface 2; Exp2, NEODENT) on response of preliminary differentiation and cell maturation.Material and methodImmortalized osteoblast cells were plated on Exp1 and Exp2 titanium discs. The polystyrene plate surface without disc was used as control group (C). Cell viability was assessed by measuring mitochondrial activity (MTT) at 4 and 24 h (n = 5), cell attachment was performed using trypan blue exclusion within 4 hours (n = 5), serum total protein and alkaline phosphatase normalization was performed at 4, 7 and 14 days (n = 5). Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey test.ResultThe values of cell viability were: 4h: C– 0.32±0.01A; Exp1– 0.34±0.08A; Exp2– 0.29±0.03A. 24h: C– 0.43±0.02A; Exp1– 0.39±0.01A; Exp2– 0.37±0.03A. The cell adhesion counting was: C– 85±10A; Exp1- 35±5B; Exp2– 20±2B. The amounts of serum total protein were 4d: C– 40±2B; Exp1– 120±10A; Exp2– 130±20A. 7d: C– 38±2B; Exp1– 75±4A; Exp2– 70±6A. 14 d: C– 100±3A; Exp1– 130±5A; Exp2– 137±9A. The values of alkaline phosphatase normalization were: 4d: C– 2.0±0.1C; Exp1– 5.1±0.8B; Exp2– 9.8±2.0A. 7d: C– 1.0±0.01C; Exp1– 5.3±0.5A; Exp2– 3.0±0.3B. 14 d: C– 4.1±0.3A; Exp1– 4.4±0.8A; Exp2– 2.2±0.2B. Different letters related to statistical differences.ConclusionThe surfaces tested exhibit different behavior at dosage of alkaline phosphatase normalization showing that the Exp2 is more associated with induction of cell differentiation process and that Exp1 is more related to the mineralization process.

[1]  M. Herrero-Climent,et al.  Influence of acid-etching after grit-blasted on osseointegration of titanium dental implants: in vitro and in vivo studies , 2013, Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine.

[2]  Marcos V Silva,et al.  Evaluation of human polymorphonuclear behavior on textured titanium and calcium-phosphate coated surfaces , 2013, Biomedical materials.

[3]  J. Granjeiro,et al.  Short-term response of human osteoblast-like cells on titanium surfaces with micro- and nano-sized features. , 2012, Scanning.

[4]  Geng-sheng Shi,et al.  Effect of heat treatment on H2O2/HCl etched pure titanium dental implant: An in vitro study , 2012, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[5]  Yoshihiko Furuki,et al.  Simultaneous Sinus Lifting and Alveolar Distraction of a Severely Atrophic Posterior Maxilla for Oral Rehabilitation with Dental Implants , 2012, International journal of dentistry.

[6]  U. van Rienen,et al.  Adhesion of osteoblasts to a nanorough titanium implant surface , 2011, International journal of nanomedicine.

[7]  A. Piattelli,et al.  Histological and immunohistochemical evaluation of the peri-implant soft tissues around machined and acid-etched titanium healing abutments: a prospective randomised study , 2011, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[8]  K. Balík,et al.  The interaction of osteoblasts with bone-implant materials: 1. The effect of physicochemical surface properties of implant materials. , 2011, Physiological research.

[9]  L. Kong,et al.  The effect of hierarchical micro/nanosurface titanium implant on osseointegration in ovariectomized sheep , 2011, Osteoporosis International.

[10]  P. Coelho,et al.  Histomorphometric evaluation of a nanothickness bioceramic deposition on endosseous implants: a study in dogs. , 2009, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[11]  T. Albrektsson,et al.  Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  J. Granjeiro,et al.  Basic research methods and current trends of dental implant surfaces. , 2009, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[13]  Thomas Jay Webster,et al.  Nanomedicine for implants: a review of studies and necessary experimental tools. , 2007, Biomaterials.

[14]  R. Borojevic,et al.  Effect of three distinct treatments of titanium surface on osteoblast attachment, proliferation, and differentiation. , 2005, Clinical oral implants research.

[15]  D. Landolt,et al.  Differential regulation of osteoblasts by substrate microstructural features. , 2005, Biomaterials.

[16]  J. Davies,et al.  Understanding peri-implant endosseous healing. , 2003, Journal of dental education.

[17]  D. Seabold,et al.  Implant Surface Roughness Affects Osteoblast Gene Expression , 2003, Journal of dental research.

[18]  P. D. Carvalho,et al.  Response of rat bone marrow cells to commercially pure titanium submitted to different surface treatments. , 2003, Journal of dentistry.

[19]  A Wennerberg,et al.  Determining optimal surface roughness of TiO(2) blasted titanium implant material for attachment, proliferation and differentiation of cells derived from human mandibular alveolar bone. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[20]  E. Moran,et al.  Phosphate is a specific signal for induction of osteopontin gene expression. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  J. Davies,et al.  Mechanisms of endosseous integration. , 1998, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[22]  A. Scarano,et al.  Effects of alkaline phosphatase on bone healing around plasma-sprayed titanium implants: a pilot study in rabbits. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[23]  B D Boyan,et al.  Role of material surfaces in regulating bone and cartilage cell response. , 1996, Biomaterials.

[24]  Jörgen Lindström,et al.  Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies , 1971 .

[25]  B. Johanson,et al.  INTRA-OSSEOUS ANCHORAGE OF DENTAL PROSTHESES , 1970 .