Dentistry is still to embrace the concept of the biomaterials' healing- and immune-modulating effect when in contact with body tissues. The presented knowledge has the potential to open the door for a different interpretation of past, current, and future observations in dental implant science. From a clinical standpoint, it seems recommendable to react as rapidly as possible when facing peri-implant bone loss, trying to reestablish a foreign body equilibrium if with some bone resorption.

The presence of a titanium implant during bone healing activates the immune system and displays type 2 inflammation, which is likely to guide the host-biomaterial relationship. At the same time, bone resorption is suppressed around titanium sites compared to sham sites after 4 weeks of implantation, suggesting a shift to a more pronounced bone forming environment. This suggests two important steps in osseointegration: identification of the titanium foreign body by the immune system and the development of a bone forming environment, that at tissue level translates into bone build-up on the titanium surface and can be perceived as an attempt to isolate the foreign body from the bone marrow space.

Bone anchored biomaterials have become an indispensable solution for the restoration of lost dental elements and for skeletal joint replacements. However, a thorough understanding is still lacking in terms of the biological mechanisms leading to osseointegration and its contrast, unwanted peri-implant bone loss. We have previously hypothesized on the participation of immune mechanisms in such processes, and later demonstrated enhanced bone immune activation up to 4 weeks around titanium implants. The current experimental study explored and compared in a rabbit tibia model after 10 days of healing time, the bone inflammation/immunological reaction at mRNA level towards titanium, polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and copper compared to a Sham control. Samples from the test and control sites were, after a healing period, processed for gene expression analysis (polymerase chain reaction, (qPCR)) and decalcified histology tissue analysis. All materials displayed immune activation and suppression of bone resorption, when compared to sham. The M1 (inflammatory)/M2 (reparative) -macrophage phenotype balance was correlated to the proximity and volume of bone growth at the implant vicinity, with titanium demonstrating a M2-phenotype at 10 days, whereas copper and PEEK were still dealing with a mixed M1- and M2-phenotype environment. Titanium was the only material showing adequate bone growth and proximity inside the implant threads. There was a consistent upregulation of (T-cell surface glycoprotein CD4) CD4 and downregulation of (T-cell transmembrane glycoprotein CD8) CD8, indicating a CD4-lymphocyte phenotype driven reaction around all materials at 10 days.

No abstract

Osseointegration is likely the result of an immunologically driven bone reaction to materials such as titanium. Osseointegration has resulted in the clinical possibility to anchor oral implants in jaw bone tissue. However, the mechanisms behind bony anchorage are not fully understood and complications over a longer period of time have been reported. The current study aims at exploring possible differences between copper (Cu) and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) materials that do not osseointegrate, with osseointegrating cp titanium as control. The implants were placed in rabbit tibia and selected immune markers were evaluated at 10 and 28 days of follow-up. Cu and PEEK demonstrated at both time points a higher immune activation than cp titanium. Cu demonstrated distance osteogenesis due to a maintained proinflammatory environment over time, and PEEK failed to osseointegrate due to an immunologically defined preferential adipose tissue formation on its surface. The here presented results suggest the description of two different mechanisms for failed osseointegration, both of which are correlated to the immune system.