Objectives: This study aimed to investigate human osteoblast (HOB) responses towards different degrees of titanium (Ti) implant surface roughness. Methods: Four degrees of Ti surface roughness were investigated on a micrometer roughness scale: smooth (S: 0.08–0.1 µm), minimally rough (MM: 0.3–0.5 µm), moderately rough (MR: 1.2–1.4 µm), and rough (R: 3.3–3.7 µm). HOB cells were cultured, expanded, and maintained according to the supplier’s protocol. Cell proliferation and cytotoxicity were assessed at day 1, 3, 5, and 10 using alamarBlue and lactate dehydrogenase colorimetric assays. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, and Tukey’s post hoc test (p = 0.05 for all tests). Results: There was no significant difference in the cell proliferation or cytotoxicity of the HOB cells in contact with the different degrees of Ti surface roughness. There was, however, a significant time effect on cell proliferation (p < 0.0001) with different exposure durations for each roughness degree. Furthermore, a positive correlation (non-significant) between proliferation and cytotoxicity was observed for all investigated degrees of surface roughness. Conclusion: All investigated roughness degrees showed comparable HOB proliferation, with the MR surface presenting the highest percentage, followed by the R, MM, ad S, surfaces, respectively. The S surface showed the highest cytotoxic effect on HOBs; however, it did not reach the cytotoxic level suggested by the ISO for any medical device to be considered cytotoxic.

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the response of human gingival fibroblasts (HGFB) and human gingival keratinocytes (HGKC) towards different dental implant abutment materials. Methods: Five materials were investigated: (1) titanium (Ti), (2) titanium nitride (TiN), (3) cobalt-chromium (CoCr), (4) zirconia (ZrO2), and (5) modified polyether ether ketone (m-PEEK). Both cell lines were cultured, expanded, and seeded in accordance with the protocol of their supplier. Cell proliferation and cytotoxicity were evaluated at days 1, 3, 5, and 10 using colourimetric viability and cytotoxicity assays. Data were analysed via two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey’s post hoc test (p < 0.05 for all tests). Results: There was a statistically significant difference in cell proliferation of HGKC and HGFB cells in contact with different abutment materials at different time points, with no significant interaction between different materials. There was a significant effect on cell proliferation and cytotoxicity with different exposure times (p < 0.0001) for each material. Cell proliferation rates were comparable for both cell lines at the beginning of the study, however, HGFB showed higher proliferation rates for all materials at day 10 with better proliferation activities with ZrO and m-PEEK (40.27%) and (48.38%) respectively. HGKC showed significant interactions (p < 0.0001) in cytotoxicity between different materials. Conclusion: The present in vitro assessment investigated the biocompatibility of different abutment materials with soft tissue cells (HGFB and HGKC). The findings suggest that m-PEEK and TiN are biologically compatible materials with human cells that represent the soft tissue and can be considered as alternative implant abutment materials to Ti and ZrO2, especially when the aesthetic is of concern.